Opinion

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 baby's smaller, less developed hand. Less valuable? Less human? Hardly.

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 chose the nickel over the dime…

Level of Development. A human being’s level of development does not determine his value as a person, much less his very humanity. A three-year-old is much less developed than a 15-year-old, yet both still qualify as human beings. 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.

Environment. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to point out that the value of a person is absolutely not dependent on his whereabouts –  i.e., his 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 eight-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, 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.

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at The Catholic Maiden on May 2, 2012, and is reprinted with permission.

   
Live Action on Facebook
  • Anadrs23

    the argument isn’t so much as whether or not the unborn are human beings. We already won that debate, the question is, does a human being have a right to use someone else’s body unwillingly to sustain life?

    • Kataylor

      I’d like to hear a response to this question as well! 

      • Solntsye

        The woman implied agreement to the possibility of pregnancy upon consenting to sex. Even if her chosen form of birth control should fail, she knows there is always that chance that she could become pregnant with every sexual encounter; therefore she implies consent to pregnancy by engaging in sex.

        The only time where there is no implied consent for pregnancy is in non-consensual sex, ie: rape.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      1.) In most cases, the mother is responsible for bringing the child into existence in the first place.
      2.) Unborn babies are not foreign entities, but the natural result of the human body functioning correctly.
      3.) In most cases, the baby would be harmed far, FAR more by breaking the connection prematurely (permanent death) than the mother would (9 difficult months).

      • Solntsye

        Agree with you completely, Calvin. Lol, although…let’s not make light of pregnancy, those changes a woman’s body ungoes are permanent. Her health and body are forever altered after pregnancy, therefore women really need to stop and consider before having sex, if this is something they are willing to endure (pregnancy and delivery….oh the agony! Lol) and deal with (those permanent alterations) as a result of what choice she makes before a baby comes into the scene. And that’s really the only “choice” there is.

    • MoonChild02

      I think everyone quite covered it, but there is one thing that should be pointed out: Unborn children do not force themselves on women, and they don’t enter the woman’s body of their own free will. The child is there because s/he was forced into the position, s/he is not a usurper. There is no ability to decide such a thing on the child’s part. It’s not like they can make a concious choice at that point in time, thinking something like, “I think today I’m going to impregnate a woman and use her body as my incubator.” No, that does not happen. Even when they are conscious, they still don’t have the ability to decide, especially something like that, until they are at least a couple of years old.

    • MoonChild02

      I think everyone quite covered it, but there is one thing that should be pointed out: Unborn children do not force themselves on women, and they don’t enter the woman’s body of their own free will. The child is there because s/he was forced into the position, s/he is not a usurper. There is no ability to decide such a thing on the child’s part. It’s not like they can make a concious choice at that point in time, thinking something like, “I think today I’m going to impregnate a woman and use her body as my incubator.” No, that does not happen. Even when they are conscious, they still don’t have the ability to decide, especially something like that, until they are at least a couple of years old.

  • Pingback: A Simple Argument against the Craziness (S.L.E.D.) | Foundation Life