Wednesday, May 2, 2012

A Simple Argument Against the Craziness

I agree with pro-choicers. There, I said it. Abortion is a personal and private matter that should not be restricted in any way. We shouldn't interfere with one's personal choices. Pro-lifers, and everybody for that matter, should stay out of this decision, I agree completely if....IF. That lovely little game changer - IF. If what? If the unborn are not human beings.

Any argument for abortion will always lead back to this so called "minor detail" - the humanity of the unborn. A woman's right to her body, the freedom to choose, cases of rape and incest, financial and/or lifestyle stability will inevitably come full circle back to this fact. The unborn are human beings with inherent dignity, value, and potential, regardless of any of the above variables. Which leads me to the point at which I put on my thinking cap, (Pro-choicers, you should try it sometime), and pull out some good old fashioned logic.

Top 4 Arguments against the humanity and value of the unborn person:

"A person's a person no matter how small."
Size. This is not relevant to the worth of a human being. Is a tall person worth more than a short person? Or how about somebody with dwarfism. Absolutely not! I thought we learned this as foolish children when we choose the nickel over the dime....

Level of Development. A human being's level of development does not determine their value as a person, much less their very humanity. A 3 year old is much less developed than a 15 year old, yet they still qualify as a human being. Self awareness and mental functioning fall under this argument as well. If these factored in to our status of humanity, infants shouldn't be considered human beings, nor those who are comatose, have Alzheimer's disease, or are sleeping. Hence this ridiculousness goes down the drain along with this argument.


Environment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to point out that the value of a person is absolutely not dependent on their whereabouts or environment. Our value doesn't fluctuate as we cross the street, the city, or the world. So, tell me pro-choicers, how is it that the value and actual humanity of the unborn skyrockets from 0 to infinity throughout the 8-inch journey down the birth canal? Hmmm....inconsistency at its finest.


Degree of Dependency. Since when does viability=humanity, I must ask? If a fetus is not a human being because it can't survive without the support of its mother's body, then the humanity of the diabetic dependent on insulin is under attack. So is that of those who fully depend on medications, dialysis, life support, or even the life-saving interventions of another person. Assuming the argument that viability is the new humanity, and for the sake of  consistent philosophy, conjoined twins should be stripped of their human nature and right to life, as they share blood and body systems. Offensive? Absolutely. So is this argument.

We would be wise to ditch these arguments as a culture, and fast. For we have been guaranteed the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Take note, society, that the first of these three rights is absolutely necessary in order to be granted the latter two, and as we scream for justice in the name of "women's rights", we are denying an abominable amount of the future generation's right to simply BE BORN. 


Life is not a choice. Human dignity cannot be determined. It simply is.  

9 comments:

  1. Eloquent as always my friend. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice. The key is the made-up legal term of (I can barely type it) “Non-Person”. I’ve debated a few people on this without using religion, and I’ve never heard an objective argument that shows how a person in the earliest stage of development is actually not a person at all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Environment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to point out that the value of a person is absolutely not dependent on their whereabouts or environment. Our value doesn't fluctuate as we cross the street, the city, or the world. So, tell me pro-choicers, how is it that the value and actual humanity of the unborn skyrockets from 0 to infinity throughout the 8-inch journey down the birth canal? Hmmm....inconsistency at its finest."

    If the woman can't afford for the child, it would be better to abort it than to give him an awful life, not to mention that the child would only bring more inconveniences for a poor family.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ideasaboutgodandtheworld

    "If the woman can't afford for the child, it would be better to abort it than to give him an awful life, not to mention that the child would only bring more inconveniences for a poor family."

    It's amazing that pro-abortion advocates can always see into the future and predict that a particular child is going to have an awful life. You don't know this as a fact and neither do I. And even if one does experience an awful life, does that devalue a person's worth in God's eyes?

    Have you even considered that perhaps circumstances may change and that child may have a decent life to live after all? But if left up to you, he would never know because you cared so much about his future you decided he was better off dead. I've had five children and many times we had to scrape by to put food on the table. Which of my five children should I have killed off to make things more convenient for the rest of us? Inconvenience? That has to be the most selfish of reasons I've ever heard. If we are allowed to kill off anyone that inconveniences us, we would not have to worry about over population.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't get it. If the family is poor, how is the child going to live good? If the child is born in a family with a precarious situation, he is not going to have a good life. That simple. It would be better if he wasn't born. For him, his life would start at conception and end at birth.

      Delete
    2. The right to life is not about the quality of life in this world, but the sanctity of that life as given by God. What you and those that think like you do not understand is that YOU have qualified yourselves to determine who lives and who dies according to what YOU determine is a qualified life. Who gave you that authority over others? That decision was never ours to make. Adolf Eichmann found that out at his trial in the early sixties. After six days God looked at his creation and said that it was good, including man. Who are you to contradict that? That little innocent life in the womb was created BY God FOR God, and no one has the right to take it away from Him. I shall pray that you come to understanding our right to have a life is not based on what others believe is or is not a quality life on this earth, but by our being made in the image of God.

      Delete
  5. @Ideas...Economic status at birth is not even remotely a qualification for deciding life or death. Many people overcame humble beginnings to live good lives. Abraham Lincoln, Mother Teresa and Oprah Winfrey are three that come to mind. There are also many economic advantaged people that lead wasted lives that could have been so much more. Your whole argument is flawed from an ethical and empirical point. There is so much more to a good life than mere economics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. By justifying killing a child because of the possibility of an unhappy life, we justify killing anyone who is or has the potential to be miserable. Imagine a world in which your life could be taken against your will because you are homeless, poor, unhappy, burdensome......

    ReplyDelete
  7. Goodness, what an excellent point (re: the conjoined twins)...! I feel rather sheepish, not to have thought of it myself! :) Bravo!

    ReplyDelete