Answering the Pro-Abortionists' Objections about Choice, Privacy, and Rights.

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

In this post I address the second group of objections: Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.  

I'll address the later objections in other posts.

Objections from choice, privacy, and rights:

            These objections say abortion deals with a woman’s body and no one has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Abortion is wholly and solely the woman’s choice, they say.  This is probably the most frequent objection hence the name pro-choice.  In fact, some pro-choice advocates refer to the other side of the debate as anti-choice.  Others will just have to deal with it when a woman makes a choice concerning her body, they say.

            A related objection is the right to privacy.  Whatever a woman asks her doctor to do is a private medical matter and the government has no right to legislate anything that would invade that privacy.  This objection appears often in matters of parental consent for minors or for spousal/partner consent.  If a woman wants an abortion she can have it and that is all there is to it, they say.

            Some think since the United States Supreme Court ruling in Row v. Wade made abortion legal it is therefore morally acceptable.  Pro-choice advocates think this makes the issue of abortion a closed matter since it is “constitutionally guaranteed.”  They say it’s a constitutional right to have an abortion and to anyone who tries to take away a person’s constitutional right is criminal (since they're violating someone else's constitutional rights).  The Supreme Court ruled on the matter; the matter is closed.  Do not take away our rights, they say.

Response to objections of choice, privacy, and rights

Is Abortion Merely a Matter of Choice?

It is misleading to say that a woman (or anybody) has a right to do whatever they choose to their bodies .  Sure, a woman has the right to make many choices: hair styles, body piercing, clothes styles, which church to attend (if any at all), for whom to vote, etc.  They are also free to choose to pursue other areas where their choice is not the sole determining factor in the decision.  They may choose to apply for a certain job, but others make the decision to hire her or not.  She may choose to ask a man to marry her, but he still has a right to say no.  Every person has many choices in life that others also have a voice in the matter.  No person – man or woman – is in complete control over every aspect of their life.  An certainly no person has absolute rights to do things with their life, or their bodies, when others are directly related to the consequences.

There are also some choices that we are not to make – even to our own bodies.  If someone is suicidal, others do not sit back and say, “Well, it is their choice.  We shouldn’t interfere.”  The same situation would apply to a woman in cases of anorexia, bulimia, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, staying with an abusive spouse, or self-mutilation.  We would not be outraged if someone else intervened and urged the woman to make a different choice – we would applaud such actions by that other person.  There are some choices we do not allow others to make even to their own bodies.  Therefore, it is not necessarily wrong to make laws forbidding actions against one’s own body.

But, as I have shown, the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body; the fetus is in her body, but the fetus is not a part of her body.  So, the argument of a woman saying she has the right to have an abortion because she has the right to do to her body whatever she wishes fails on two grounds:  1.) the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body and, 2.) she does not in fact have the right to do whatever she wants to her body especially when the outcome of that action has effects on someone else.

Abortion is not a matter of a woman doing something to her own body.  It is a matter of a woman destroying another's body - an innocent person's body.  No woman has a right to do that!

The objection from a matter of choice is not valid.

A Constitutional Right?

Does a woman have the right, even the constitutional right, to kill her child (because that is what is happening during an abortion) for any reason she so chooses?  Absolutely not!  Even though there are currently legal decisions “giving” her that legal right, we must remember that legal rights are not always morally right.  

It was once legal to own slaves and treat them as you wished, but was it right to do so?  No!  Even though slavery was legal, it was not morally right.  The legal right was even upheld by the Supreme Court, but it was later overturned by one President.  The laws of men are not set in stone.  Therefore, the argument from Supreme Court approval is not a valid argument either.

The pro-choice objection from a matter of "constitution" rights is not valid.

A Matter of Privacy?

What about the woman's privacy?  Well, privacy is not an absolute right either; this applies to everyone.  There are many things that I could do in the privacy of my own home - or anywhere else I may have privacy at the moment - that could get me arrested, but I do not do them and then plea that my privacy needs protected.  The same goes for everyone else.  

Say a woman takes her toddler to her doctor and says, “Here, get rid of this child.  I can’t deal with her anymore, she's getting in the way of other things I have planned for life; but, oh, let’s keep this whole thing just between you and me.”  Would the rest of us be expected to say, “Oh, well, she did it in private, so it’s none of our business”?  Certainly not!

Now some object that I am talking about a toddler and they are talking about a non-viable group of cells.  Once again, I say that an innocent human is an innocent human regardless of the point of development.  Age and location of the human are not qualifiers for a life-ending act.  Privacy is not an issue when it comes to terminating the life of an innocent human being.

The pro-choice objection from a matter of privacy is not valid.

Privacy is not an issue when it comes to terminating the life of an innocent human being.

(For a further treatment of my arguments for every fetus being an individual human being separate from the mother, go here and my treatment against the pro-choice objection of personhood of the fetus go here.)

Answering Pro-Abortion Objection on the Nature of a Fetus

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

In this post I address the first objection.  I'll address the other objections in other posts.

Objections on the Nature of a Fetus:

            This first set of objections deals with my second premise directly.  Some say that a fetus is not alive because it is not breathing and feeding on its own.  It is not out and about on its own.  If the fetus actively depends on another for life, then it cannot be alive on its own, and if it is not alive on its own, then it is truly not alive.  If it is truly not alive, then how can you kill it?  Or, so what if you do kill it?

This objection says the fetus is more parasitic in nature than it is human.  We do not see humans going around feeding off of other humans and if we did we would certainly put a stop to it immediately.  At least in early stages of development the fetus is not viable; it cannot live on its own.  The pro-abortionist asks what is wrong with stopping the development of a being (or life of a fetus) if it cannot naturally live on its own.

            In early stages of development the fetus may not look too different than the embryos of other animals.  The central nervous system does not begin to develop until after the first month of gestation.  How can it be human without a central nervous system?  Certainly abortions prior to this should be widely acceptable.  Until a central nervous system is functioning the fetus is merely a group of cells – “a bunch of goo” as some have said.  How can removing a mere blob of cells be murder?  It is certainly not a person.

Answering the Objection:

I have demonstrated in my defense that the fetus can be nothing but human.  Humans give birth to humans and only humans.  If a human baby comes out of a woman’s womb then it must be human inside the mother’s womb.  A fetus does not somehow change species or nature during birth.  If someone says this fetus is not human, then the burden of proof is on them to prove exactly what it is and how it is not human.  If they cannot, then it is a grave error to assume their position and end an innocent life as a result.

This is a sort of plea from ignorance on their part.  They reason that if we are not sure what it is we are aborting, then what harm is there?  But, it is strange they do not seem to be too interested in being certain what it is they are aborting.  To them ignorance is bliss.  If a son came up behind his mother and asked, “Mommy, may I throw this away?”   The mother must turn around and determine exactly of what he is speaking.  It would certainly be foolish to grant blind approval.

This also goes for the objection that the fetus is not alive.  Here too I have demonstrated that the fetus is growing, contains unique genetic material, and is developing into a more specifically complex organism.  If these are not indications of a living being, then the burden of proof is on those in favor of abortion to show exactly how such organism is not alive.  Again, conjecture, opinion, or anything short of proof will not suffice in a matter of life & death.

I have given reasoned, scientific arguments that the fetus inside a woman’s body is a living, human being.  If the fetus is not a person or does not possess "personhood," then the burden of proof is on the pro-abortionists to show exactly when “personhood” is obtained, if it is at some time other than when a forty-six chromosomal, human zygote begins developing.  Yet, they continually fall short of this in their dogmatic claims.[1]
  
Is “personhood” based on consciousness alone?  Certainly not.  If it is, then why is it not legal to kill someone so high on heroin that they are oblivious to the world?  It is illegal to kill such a person because they are a living, human being – a person – and consciousness has nothing to do with the matter.

Nature is From the Beginning:

Some argue that an acorn is not an oak tree, but only potentially an oak tree: likewise a fetus is not human (or not fully human) but is only potentially human.  This argument does not hold.  An acorn does not have the potential to become an oak tree – it is an oak tree at the beginning stages of development.  An acorn does not have the potential to become anything other than an oak tree because “oak-ness” is a part of the acorn’s essence.  An acorn will emerge from the ground as a sprout, then grow some more to be a sapling, then grow more to be a larger tree, and will continue to grow until its growth is altered by outside forces; but it is always an oak.

Likewise, a fetus is not a potential human – it is human.  A fetus has no potential to become anything other than a human because “human-ness” is a part of the fetus’ essence.  A fetus will emerge from the womb as a baby, and then grow more to be a toddler, then more to be an adolescent, then to a young adult and so on.  This growth will continue in a natural manner unless it is altered by some outside force; but this fetus is always a human.  Abortion would definitely be such an outside force that terminates its growth in an unnatural way.

"But, It Cannot Live On Its Own."

True, the fetus cannot survive on its own apart from the mother, but that does not make it parasitic, nor is the fetus some form of cannibal.  A parasite attaches itself with its teeth or hook-like structures because the host will naturally try to repel it.  In a pregnancy the human zygote develops into a blastocyst which does attach to the uterine wall, but then the woman’s body welcomes the embryo by developing ways to accommodate the fetus and its development in a natural way.  These changes in the mother’s body are not only in the uterus and for the fetal stage of development, but also for the days following birth.  
During pregnancy estrogen and progesterone levels increase.  These hormones do not come from the fetus, but from the mother.  The result is a growth of the mammary glands.  Following birth the mother’s milk is rich in nutrients beneficial to the baby.[2]  These processes are natural and regular.  The woman’s body goes through changes to sustain the pregnancy and the child for months afterwards.  The woman’s body goes through changes naturally in order to continue the pregnancy.  The woman’s body naturally changes to welcome the fetus and to help it survive.  Pregnancy and birth are the natural life sustaining processes of the body.  Abortion is the unnatural, life ending actions against the baby’s body and a life altering action against the mother’s body.

Even though a fetus cannot survive on its own, that is no justification for abortion.  It is accurate to say that no babies or toddlers can survive on their own either, but that does not justify killing them either.  Many adolescents, adults, and elderly people cannot survive solely on their own, but we do not use that as a reason to kill them if they become a burden to us.  We certainly would not condone the killing of welfare recipients just because they need assistance from others and cannot “make it on their own.”  Astronauts cannot survive on their own outside the International Space Station, but that's no reason to kill them in space.  

So, if not being able to make it on their own is not a justification for killing those outside of the womb, why do some try to make it a justification for killing those inside the womb?  

The pro-abortionist reasoning is severely flawed.

---

[1]  Granted, both sides of the abortion debate are often dogmatic.  Hopefully my arguments will help both sides be less dogmatic and become more analytical & logical.

[2] Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 5^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989) p 524.

Abortion Should Be Illegal: Logic, Reason, and Science Agree

Introduction

One prevalent and heated subject is the legalization of abortion.  

For the most part, those interested in the debate have sided in one of two camps: pro-choice or pro-life.  

The former often believes that women should be permitted to get an abortion at any time for any reason and the latter thinks abortion should be illegal.  Although many pro-choice advocates say they are in favor of abortion only in cases such as incest or rape, they concede to the strong pro-choice camp by letting abortion on demand be legal.  

Both sides have presented several arguments for their position.  In spite of all the arguments on both sides, it comes down to this:

If the unborn is not a human person, then no justification for abortion is necessary; however, if the unborn is a human person, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

My thesis is:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.   Valid meaning that if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessary and absolutely must be true.

Defense of Thesis

            The defense of my thesis rests on the second premise.  It is safe to say that every right-minded person would agree with the major premise; that all acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  Both sides of the abortion debate would likely agree with this, so I will concentrate the arguments in defense of the second premise.  My argument rests on the premise that the fetus inside a woman is a living, human person.  It is obviously innocent and defenseless.  The crux of my argument is the fetus is a living person.

Taking Innocent Life Is Universally Condemned

            Not only is it universally condemned to take an innocent human life, but a culture that practices such is practically unthinkable.  Who can imagine a culture where any person at any time may take the life of any other individual for any reason?  It is unthinkable that such a society could possibly exist – not because of “the herd is stronger than the individual” survival instinct – but because of the moral code that is written on our hearts.  Granted there have been cases of despots, kings, queens, and other tyrants that committed such murders (even mass murders), but even in those cases one of two things can be found.  First, the rest of that society did not approve of such actions, but remained helpless or was silent because of terror or the temporary inability to thwart it.  Or second, classification of humanness was the issue and not the approval of murder.  This second case needs a little more explanation.

What I mean in this second case is that even though it may appear that most of that society approved of murder at any given time, it is not really the case.  For instance, consider Nazi Germany’s actions towards Jews and some slave owners towards slaves.  In these situations it was morally wrong and illegal to kill an innocent human being.  A Nazi could not kill any person he wished and a slave owner was not permitted by law to kill his neighbor (or even his neighbor’s slave) out of convenience.  A Jew was not considered a full human being to a Nazi; or at the most, a significantly inferior human.  To the slave owner, slaves were not human employees; they were only human-like property.[1]  Even in extreme cases of human brutality it was not a matter that murder was condoned, it was a matter of what and who is human.

Is a fetus a human being? 

All creatures naturally spawn other creatures only of their same kind.  Dogs do not naturally give birth to kittens, fish, or oak trees; dogs produce only other dogs.  Acorns do not sprout roses – only oak trees.  Likewise, humans give birth only to humans.  Since humans give birth only to humans, the fetus in a woman’s womb can be nothing other than human.  Location does not change essence.  Furthermore, the fetus must be alive because he or she is growing and developing into a more complex being.  This development is not random or chaotic like rust or a tumor; it is specific and predictable in nearly every instance.  This development is also not merely getting larger as in the formation of crystals nor is it merely more widespread like a virus.  This growth is producing a more complex individual being with its own organs, reflexes, immune system, brain waves, and unique DNA.

When does this development become human?  It is human at the first of its becoming.  It does not develop into a human.  It is human and that is why it develops.  Granted not everything that develops is human, but I have already dealt with the issue of the humanity of the fetus.  The point I make here is that the fetus is human from the very first moment of development.  A college biology book says it this way:

Sexual reproduction begins with meiosis and proceeds through the formation of gametes.  It ends at fertilization, when the sperm nucleus and egg nucleus fuse in the first cell of the new individual (the zygote).  A zygote grows into a multi-celled adult by way of mitosis, which faithfully maintains the chromosome number characteristic of the species, division after division.^[2]

Notice that the reproduction ends at fertilization and a new individual life begins.  From the zygote on there is a separate human life.

Humans – even single-celled humans – have forty-six chromosomes.  This is an essential characteristic of being human.  Since the fetus is unique and has a different genetic code from the mother, he or she is a different human being separate from the mother.  Abortion then is not simply a matter of choice with a mother’s body because the abortion affects a human being other than the mother.  This other human being is a unique person that has some similarities to the mother, and some to the father, but is a different human being as a whole.

Abortion is an act that intentionally takes away the life of a human being that has committed no crime whatsoever.  These types of acts are met with universal condemnation and, therefore, abortion should be illegal everywhere.  Since the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Objections To Thesis:

            Objections to my thesis are almost entirely towards my second premise.  Anyone who objects to my first premise is a person who is rejected outright by the rest of humanity.  It is my premise that abortion is an intentional act of taking an innocent human that faces the objections.  Some might even agree with both of my premises, but reject the conclusion due to some special cases.  My syllogism, however, is valid.  If my premises are true, then my conclusion is necessarily true.  There should be no further argument if both premises are true, yet there is.  I have grouped objections to my argument into five classes.  Every argument I have heard against my thesis so far can be grouped into one of these.

I will answer answer these objections in blog posts soon to follow:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

I cannot be silent any longer.

---

[1] This was even upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case.

[2] Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 5^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989) 140 – 141.