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.
