You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘pro choice’ tag.

Recently, I’ve come across a new argument that the pro-choice camp is throwing out there that…well…like many of their other arguments, just doesn’t cut it. The argument goes like this:

If you support the eradication of abortions, you’ll support the use of contraceptives

If you don’t support the use of contraceptives, then you don’t really care about ending abortions.

The support for such an idea is that because contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies, contraceptives cut down on abortion. The effect of contraceptives is that the rate of abortions are lowered because the rate of unwanted pregnancies are likewise lowered. If women aren’t getting pregnant then they can’t get abortions.

The problem for those who are against abortion and contraceptives, however, is that they can’t support one to end the other. For such people (mostly Catholics), to support birth control is to support something unnatural in the act of intercourse, something that prevents life from coming about. Thus, even if supporting contraceptives would lower the rate of abortion they cannot support contraceptives, for as the saying goes, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Once again I have found myself arguing against illogical pro-choice advocates. The most recent one is making the following arguments:

1) Pro-life people don’t really care about how many abortions are prevented because every single person who is pro-life is against contraception

2) Pro-life people don’t care about preventing abortions because they’re against Planned Parenthood (the argument is Planned Parenthood prevents abortions, thus pro-life people should be for Planned Parenthood)

3) Pro-life people only care about preventing women from having sex and they want to turn women into baby-making machines (O NOES!)

The saddest part about this whole debate I’ve been having is the person cannot name one book on the issue that she has read. Not one book for the pro-choice stance or one book against it. Yet, the person claims to be an expert on this issue because she’s written a lot of blog posts on pro-life issues.

The following response does use harsh rhetoric, calling the person “ignorant” and using a “stupid argument.” Such rhetoric is quite intentional on my part. I am attempting to point out to the person exactly where she stands on this issue and that she is, in fact, in ignorance on it. By admitting that she hasn’t studied the issue, she has admitted ignorance. Likewise, I don’t believe one should go after wolves with a whiffle bat and a Nerf gun.

My response to such drivel is as follows:

Read the rest of this entry »

Al Mohler has posted an excellent article explaining an op-ed from the Times [London].

The Op-ed says that even though a fetus is a human person, for the sake of feminism we must be allowed to kill the fetus. While openly honest, one must wonder if the writer took her beliefs to their logical end. For instance, should men who don’t fully embrace feminism be killed for the sake of feminism? Should male CEO’s who make more than their female counterparts be hung from public squares and made an example of?

While equality for women is a vitally important issue, it does not trump the issue of life. The right to live trumps all other rights. If we lose the right to live, if our right to live is trumped by another right, then we have no rights. If we have no life, we have no rights. If we have no right to live, then we have no rights to claim.

Recently, Alaska has been in the news for putting a parental notification law on the ballot. Of course, multiple people have jumped up to say that such a law somehow violates women’s rights. How the law violates women’s rights when these same “women” (under-aged girls) have to get parental consent for medical treatment, not just notification. This means Planned Parenthood argues that when it comes to killing a fetus, a 15 year old has a right to her body, but when it comes to consenting to a field trip or the like, the 15 year old no longer has a right over her body. This is a contradiction, but I digress.

I’ve been thinking more and more about people who are against abortion, but then qualify their statement to say, “But I would never make it illegal for others.” This forces the question, “Why not?” The only proper reason to be against abortions is that one believes the fetus to be a human person. If one believes the fetus to be a human person, then it should follow that one believes the fetus has rights.

Read the rest of this entry »

ABC put forth possibly one of the most biased reports I’ve seen in quite some time. Starting with an emotional appeal, the article reveals its bias in a most blatant manner, “But under a new law in Oklahoma, women like Casteix, who have been sexually assaulted, will be forced to undergo a second trauma. The law requires them to undergo a sonogram, and depending on the state of pregnancy, it could be a transvaginal one, which involves insertion of a wand.” The article goes on to bury the other side of the story, placing it on the third page, a page that most readers wouldn’t get to.

Journalistic integrity (or the lack thereof) aside, it is true that the law doesn’t allow for exceptions in abortion or incest. Considering that 93% of abortions occur for social reasons (with only about 1% occurring for rape or incest), there’s little reason to include a caveat in the law concerning rape and incest. Regardless, such a caveat is, logically speaking, unnecessary.

When abortion proponents bring up rape and incest as exceptions, they are often using fallacious reasoning. They are making an emotional appeal in order to support the act of abortion. Not to sound completely callous, I do have sympathy for someone who has been raped and then been left with a pregnancy as a result of that rape. Such an event is tragic and if the family or private organizations cannot help such a woman, I believe the government has a moral obligation to help her. Whether that be through paying for her counseling, paying for her healthcare during and after the pregnancy, or providing adequate and safe housing, the government should take care of her if her family or private organizations fall short.

Regardless, if a fetus is a human person (even if certain capacities haven’t been fully realized) then whether the fetus’ creation was intentional, an accident, or the product of a forced sexual act becomes completely irrelevant when discussing the rights of the fetus. Whatever the paternal contributor did has no bearing on the rights of the fetus. Looking at the issue logically (which one must do when determining the morality of an issue) whether or not a pregnancy was caused by rape is completely superfluous. If the fetus is not a human person or has yet to obtain personhood, then whether the law allows the caveat of rape and incest is irrelevant; the law is arbitrary and unnecessary. If, however, the fetus is a human person, then no caveat for rape is needed because the fetus is still a human being.

Before we bring in the victimhood of the mother (which is legitimate, she is a victim in the case of rape and incest), we must also realize that the fetus is also a victim. The fetus will eventually become an infant, that infant will become a child, that child will become a teenager, and that teenager will become an adult. In all those processes, that child will most likely grow up without a father and/or knowing that he is a product of a rapist. This causes quite a bit of guilt and problems on the part of the child. Just as the mother suffers so too the child suffers.

Another aspect to consider is the moral status of being a victim as opposed to being a victimizer. One must consider if it is better morally to be put into the Gulag for refusing to spy on one’s neighbors, or if it is morally better to spy on one’s neighbors and put them in the Gulag in order to avoid the same punishment for one’s self. Most ethicists and even laypeople will agree that, morally speaking, it is better to be a victim than to be a victimizer. When we look to the issue of abortion, specifically in the case of rape, though the woman is in the morally better position by being the victim, when she seeks an abortion she actually becomes a victimizer; though a victim of rape, she shares the moral equivalency of her rapist when she seeks an abortion as she is murdering a human person.

Such harsh terminology might make some uncomfortable, but before having an emotional response, it is better to truly evaluate what was just said. If the fetus is a human person, then to terminate that life is the equivalent to murder. After all, we hardly ever say that Stalin “terminated potential votes,” but rather that he murdered millions of people. We don’t say that a rapist had “involuntary sexual intercourse,” but rather that he raped a woman. We use such terminology because (1) such terminology appropriately describes what occurred and (2) certain words have emotional connotations. Thus, when we look to abortion, we see:

1) An innocent human person (the fetus)

2) The killing of the innocent human person

Killing an innocent human person is almost always called murder. When a woman, who is a victim of rape, seeks to kill the fetus that is the result of rape, she engages in murder. Though she will always be a victim of rape, she becomes a victimizer when she seeks an abortion, which makes her just as immoral as her rapist. This might be a hard pill to swallow, but it still remains true.

In conclusion, whether or not a pregnancy is caused by rape is completely irrelevant. If the fetus is a human person, then no caveat for rape or incest should be allowed (life of the mother, however, does remain a legitimate caveat that people can voluntarily consider). A human person is still a human person, regardless of how he came into existence.

By J. Borofsky

The other day I came across this post and found it quite interesting. What was more interesting was one of the comments given by someone with the handle of “Operation Counterstrike”:

Yes, abortion is homicide. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

If something is inside your body, then you’re entitled to have it killed. No exceptions. Even if it’s an “innocent” person. If you were inside my body, then I’d be entitled to kill you, and if I were inside your body, you’d be entitled to kill me. In fact if ALL the people in the WHOLE HUMPING WORLD, including the innocent ones, the pregnant ones, and the unborn ones, were inside your body, then you’d be entitled to holocaust them. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”.

This is really a sophomoric version of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “body ownership” argument. Though he approaches the argument in a childish and immature manner, it is a real argument. I offered up the following as a response:

Read the rest of this entry »

Dealing with Intrinsic Human Value

Prelude | Essence and Potentiality | Definitions | What is human? | Intrinsic Value of humanity | Of fetuses, infants, disabled, and others (Part a) Of fetuses, infants, disabled, and others (Part b) | Functionalism and Utilitarian ethics revisited | Conclusion

___________________________________________________

What does it mean to be human? This question is far more difficult than people could imagine. Different cultures define “human” in different ways, depending on their views of the world. In parts of modern India, some people are not classified as human due to their lower caste. In ancient Rome, the head of a family could kill any child born into that family if he didn’t feel the child was worthwhile, because Romans did not believe children to be human. In more recent memories, the debate often raged over whether or not African slaves and their descendents were human (or as human as whites).

Thus, this question often elicits different answers with different responses. Is it possible to know what a human person is? I would advocate that it is quite possible.

The Essence of Humanity

The classic definition for “human person” is the ancient Greek understanding that a human is a “rational animal.” But what does this mean?

Rational –

To be rational means that we have the capability to engage in advanced thinking. Beasts, to an extent, have the capacity for a limited form of rational thinking, but only humans have the capability for advanced rational thinking. Our use of language, our creativity, our desire to discover, and so on. We are self-aware, so much that we often wonder what our purpose in life is. No animal wonders about his purpose or takes the time to be creative – there is food to be found and mating to be had. Humans, however, transcend such tendencies.

This is because we are non-instinctual beings. Though we can certainly rely on our instincts and though it is sometimes good, there are times where we will work against our instincts. For instance, a man who is married, but comes across an attractive woman might have the instinct to try to mate with her, but realizing he is married, he will make the choice to remain loyal to his wife. Though his instincts push him one way, his ability to rationally evaluate the situation causes him to go another. Were he nothing more than an animal, then he would have to act on his instincts.

Animal –

Man is also an animal. This is much easier to explain than being rational, as this is what links us to the beasts rather than separates us. To say that man is an animal distinguishes him from other forms of biological life and places him in a specific category.

All animals have physical bodies, as opposed to plants, trees, or rocks. We are not inanimate, nor do we stay in one spot. We are biological creatures with a body, that is, an animal.

Thus, man is a rational animal, something that has a physical body, but holds the ability for deep reason.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cross posted at The Christian Watershed.

It has been over a year since I put up my post, “If you end abortion, then…” dealing with common objections to ending abortion, mostly focused on the consequences of such an action.

In that year’s time, I have come across more objections to and arguments against the pro-life movement. On this post, I want to take the time to look at these arguments. Some are more complicated than others and will require a deeper response. Though lengthy, I believe reading the entire thing can help both the open-minded choice advocate and the pro-life advocate.

I am separating this into two different posts as well. The first one will deal with what I call “popular objections,” that is, objections that are commonly heard in the media. These are easy to swat down as there isn’t much substance. The second part will deal with the more scientific objections and deeper philosophical objections (e.g. what about when a fertilized egg splits and later comes back together?, are humans truly ever innocent?, a human has a right to kill whatever is dependent upon that human, etc). The first part will be more useful as these are the common objections. The second part, however, will be more enlightening for the rare occasion you run into a good argument for pro-choice.

1)   The only reason someone would support pro-life is that that person is against a woman having a right over her own body.

A common argument is that those who are against abortion are only against abortion because of their belief that women hold little to no rights over their own bodies. It is true that there are some pro-life advocates who also hold the belief that women are lesser than men (such as extreme Islamists or extreme fundamentalist Christians), but ultimately such views are unrelated to abortion. One can believe a women holds the full rights to her own body, but still believe that abortion is wrong.

Some pro-life advocates are against contraceptive use, but this goes both ways. Just as they are against it for women, they are likewise against it for men as well. Thus, those who are against contraceptive use seemingly have a different view over the liberties a human can take with his or her body. Regardless, the standard applied to women under such a view is likewise applied to men.

Finally, if pro-life advocates were against what women did with their bodies, why aren’t they out protesting women who get piercings, women who paint their toenails, women who get tattoos, and so on? It would seem that the one issue the pro-life crowd concerns itself when it comes to a woman’s body is what she does with her womb when there is a child inside of her.

This indicates that the issue isn’t about the right a woman holds over her body. It is more about if what is inside of her is human. The issue of  “women’s rights” is truly secondary to the issue of intrinsic value in humanity. Is what is in the womb human? If so, is that human life intrinsically valuable? Those two issues must be looked thoroughly. In fact, the only way we can move on to the issue of women’s rights, specifically a woman’s right over her own body, is if we can prove that either of the previous two questions can be answered in the negative. Then and only then does the abortion debate become an issue of women’s rights.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cross posted at The Christian Watershed.

There are several arguments used by pro-abortion advocates that argue the ramifications of not allowing abortion outweigh the ramifications of allowing abortion.

With the previous topic in mind – that human life is most logically defined as that which begins at conception or implantation – let us look at some of the common scenarios presented:

If abortion is no longer allowed, women will go back to coat hanger abortions.

It might be true that if abortion is no longer allowed (outside of medical conditions) some women might go to “back alley abortionists,” which inevitably puts the mother at significant risk. Obviously law enforcement would have to step up investigating doctors and other people who offer such illegal services. This would, in turn, drive up the cost of enforcement, which would force taxpayers to pay a heavy toll. Is banning abortion worth this?

Read the rest of this entry »

I write this intending to avoid a religious argument or religious justification for abortion. While I believe certain “sins” can only occur with a religious backing (i.e. blasphemy against God or why homosexuality is wrong [having the religious backing doesn’t mean these views of morality are subjective, merely that one must invoke God in explaining why they are wrong]), there are others that one can look at through a secular point of view and still see these actions as being wrong (i.e. murder and abortion). Thus, though I believe Christianity has the best definition for humanity and the best argument against abortion, I believe one can use an entirely secular argument to discredit abortion. This article attempts to do that.

The problem with abortion is that, in the very least, no one really knows when human life begins (I do believe we can know, but in the very minimalist sense we can plead ignorance). Science can help us determine the ontology of a human, but we set the boundaries for what is and is not human. Such boundaries in the abortion debate, have not been set.

One could argue that the ontological boundary has been established that something moves from being a “fetus” to a “human” at the point it leaves the womb alive. This, of course, allows for third term abortions. Some courts, however, have ruled that Roe v. Wade does not protect third term abortions and that life in the third trimester is human, thus it cannot be exterminated. This would mean that some courts view human life beginning when the “fetus” is viable outside of the womb.

The problem with the above definition – that human life begins when a fetus leaves the womb and is viable – is that some babies naturally born are not technically viable outside of the womb. Some need to be put on ventilators; others require other technological advances in order to live. A baby that is operated on in the womb – such as having a stunt put in the heart to help the baby develop properly – are never technically viable outside of the womb; they will always require some outside source in order to function properly. Under the idea that “viability” somehow makes someone human, such people are no longer human. Likewise, if someone is injured in an accident and requires any technological assistance in order to live, that person is really no longer a person. This definition of humanity, therefore, is severely lacking. Read the rest of this entry »

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6 other followers

Follow us on Facebook!

Categories

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Archives