And yes, I know what I just said and yes, I am going to defend it.
The United States has seen many atrocities committed within it's own borders. Some of these include the terrible institute of slavery, the relocation (a politically correct term really meaning kicking out) of the Native Americans, and the deep hatred for blacks in the south before and during the Civil Rights movement. All these things were terrible and I am neither attempting to lessen the impact of them nor am I trying to get you to forget about them. I am simply stating that they pale in comparison to the evilness that is abortion.
This website, numberofabortions.com, gives the world wide calculator for how many abortions have taken place since different dates, 1970, 1973, and 1980, depending on the clock you are looking at. It also gives the number of American abortions. At the time of my writing, the number in America alone since 1973 was 56,306,389. That, my friends, is genocide of a people group. Genocide combined with Infanticide? Who would have dreamed that was possible?
It is terrible.
It is terrible.
Well, of course, it is only if you think abortion is murder.
And it is.
And it is.
To classify an unborn baby as non-human simply because they are "less human" or "less developed" and using that as basis for it not being murder is like saying we can kill a non-adolescent 10 year old simply because he's "less human" than a fully developed 30 year old. Because that makes sense.
Then there are others who claim that I, as a male, have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. They say, "no uterus, no say." Using that logic, the northern abolitionists had no right to rid the south of slaves. Also, just because a woman carries the child for 8, 9, or 10 months, it DOES NOT MEAN she owns the child. The father shares just as much ownership and has a responsibility to stick around just as the mother shares the same responsibility to stick around as in, not killing the baby.
And, oh, the child is not an "extension" of the woman's body. A hand is an extension of the woman's body, not a baby. The hand shares the same DNA as the woman and can be controlled by the woman. The baby has it's own DNA and moves on its own. It's biological processes work on their own with nourishment from the mother. A human gets it's food from a cow, it does not mean he is part of the cow.
Abortion is wrong and whose who are for it are waging a war against the most helpless human being on the planet. It's vile, it's sick to kill an unborn human. There are a few things I hate in the world, but abortion is one of them
As a great politician once said,
"I notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
And, oh, the child is not an "extension" of the woman's body. A hand is an extension of the woman's body, not a baby. The hand shares the same DNA as the woman and can be controlled by the woman. The baby has it's own DNA and moves on its own. It's biological processes work on their own with nourishment from the mother. A human gets it's food from a cow, it does not mean he is part of the cow.
Abortion is wrong and whose who are for it are waging a war against the most helpless human being on the planet. It's vile, it's sick to kill an unborn human. There are a few things I hate in the world, but abortion is one of them
As a great politician once said,
"I notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
Yeah. That was Ronald Reagan.
------------ If you like the article, give my blog a follow and/or share it on facebook/twitter/googleplus!
Hey Jake, a blog is a good idea. I'd be interested in your view of why killing is wrong and then proceed to a working idea of the immorality of abortion from there. You can't just apply the idea of a fetus being less developed than a baby to be the same as between a 10 and 30 year old. The difference between a few cells that are multiplying that do not yet have a heart beat, any sign of sentience or brain activity is magnitudes of order different than the difference between and 10 and 30 year old. Just because it's a blurred line doesn't make it a slippery slope. The confusion is that most people see murder as wrong because you are hurting some sentient being that has free will and should be able to choose to live or die. A very young fetus does not yet have any semblance of free will or decision making power, or ability to feel pain (which comes later in the pregnancy).
ReplyDeleteSo I guess my question to you is, why is murder wrong? We then can apply the reasoning for why that murder is wrong to a fetus and determine if it still applies.
The response 'that every human life is sacred' I don't think is enough. Even if you could justify that from a religious viewpoint, if you are going to make it illegal for everyone that isn't religious, there needs to be some sort of moral basis other than 'life is sacred,' which is pretty vague.
Here is an example of one line of reasoning, if you are up for some fancy reading: http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf
This argues for the immorality of abortion based on 'future potential.' It's an argument not without its flaws, but perhaps the best I've seen.
You make great points Tim. From a scientific standpoint, why is anything immoral or "wrong?" That's a serious question that I don't doubt you have an answer for. Do natural rights exist within only the world of science without a god-like being? Other than "life is sacred," i prefer the reasoning behind it that you are trying to stop something that God has created or put into place. God set it up and we are trying to stop it. I don't know why certain things are wrong and certain things aren't but really, what makes something wrong is that God says its wrong. God has reasons for certain things being wrong even If I don't know what they are.
DeleteI think the whole argument that you can create laws for yourself but don't make them for others because they don't share your beliefs is a flawed argument. I mentioned it in the blog, but we've seen that in the 19th century during the political debates leading up to the civil war. If I shouldn't press for what I think is right and try to put others under the same law, then the north shouldn't have pushed for the freedom of the slaves right?
I do like the future potential argument! You've mentioned it to me before! It is really interesting.
Sorry for the grammar issues, i was typing quickly because I had to go do something :P
DeleteI think you are missing the point. The issue is not whether you should push for the things you believe are right. I completely agree that if you think something is morally wrong according to your religion, then you should push to institute those morals. If you believe that abortion/slavery/etc. is morally wrong, then of course you should push to enact laws that support that, even if it affects people other than yourself.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that in order to be successful in putting your moral code into law or increasing moral behavior, you need to JUSTIFY those morals to those outside of your belief system via reasoning/methods outside your belief system. You need more than just a "My God says so," because in our country, it then is pushing religious beliefs on others who don't share those same morals. Regardless of the original source of many of our moral codes, we justify them according to ideas that are mutually beneficial for society so that those without those religious views can see them as just and fair. So while God's law may be a great way to motivate you into putting certain moral codes into law, you need a justification to put forth to those in other religions or nonreligious as to why those moral laws should be implemented.
For instance, as a muslim, I might think a woman should always wear a burqa because Allah commands it and might push for the government to institute a law that requires all women to wear burqas when in public. However, if I just claim we should make that law because Allah claims that women's beauty is too much for men to see in public, then I have failed to provide the necessary justification to non-muslims as to why this is a fair and just law (since these laws would apply to non-muslims who don't follow the same set of morals - Christians might see such a law as a violation of the separation of church and state, or that they are being religiously persecuted). I might personally believe that the only justification I personally need is that Allah commands it, but in order to promote this in a government that has separation of church and state, I'd need to offer a justification to the public such as "the wearing of burqas decreases the rate of male on woman rape, and reduces women's skin cancer by 50%, so it should be law to protect the health of women in the U.S." or some other moral basis that can be widely accepted across ethno/religious divides.
You see, we may derive our personal morals from different religious sources, but when creating laws that apply across different belief systems, we need to justify them in a secular way that we can all agree on. (Of course we won't always be able to justify EVERY law to EVERY group - for instance, NAMBLA will always disagree with anti-pedophilia laws, but the general goal of a law that we put in place is to 1. create benefits to society and 2. promote fairness and equality)
I understand. So let's go from a scientfifc standpoint:
DeleteI think most everyone considers murder wrong right? So, if we agree that an unborn baby is a human, then killing it would be murder. That's how I would argue it non-religiously.
On the muslim note, I would have no problem with muslims wanting us to do that, but I would have a problem with it taking effect. I would support their right to vote for it but I would vote against it. In the same way, people shouldn't get angry at me for voting against abortion. We have voting so we can try to put into place what we think is right. People voting and 100% separation of church and state doesn't work well because then I can't vote against abortion solely on the premise that God says it's wrong. Does that make sense?