Today I would like to show how one can debate, argue, on the
merits of being pro-life without using religious texts for support.
Using only science and our own Declaration of Independence
we can make a solid argument against any and all abortions. First we need to understand that a person is
a living human being. The online
dictionary Merriam-Webster defines ‘person’ as “a human being.” Second, our Declaration of Independence tells
us that all human beings have an unalienable right to life. And thirdly, we can know that a new human
being begins its life at the moment of fertilization. As the same online dictionary defines
‘fertilization’ as: the process of union
of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the
development of a new individual is initiated.
There you have
it. Everything you need to successfully
explain your pro-life position as being well supported by science by applying
the fundamental right to life for all human beings from the beginning of its
life (at fertilization) to its natural end.
There’s no other
conclusion possible. You see, the only
objections to my position of pro-life is to argue that size, level of
development, Environment or degree of dependency are points allowing for the
destruction of what is growing in the womb, which science tells us that it’s a
living human being.
Let’s look at these
different objections to see how weak their position really is. Does size determine if someone has a right to
life? No, of course not. A baby is much smaller than a teenager but
that doesn’t mean that the baby doesn’t have a right to life simply because
it’s smaller in size. The same goes for
a newly formed human being, the zygote.
It may be extremely small but it is indeed a human being and alive and
therefore it has a right to life just as a baby or a teenager does. Size does not determine if one has rights.
Does the level of
development determine if one has the right to life? Of course not. An adult human being is much more developed
than a toddler, does that mean that the adult has a greater degree of this
right to life than the toddler does? Just because the level of development might
prevent a human being from ‘thinking’ or ‘feeling’ doesn’t mean that our value
is based on our abilities. Some individuals , like Gabby Gingras, can’t
feel pain at all but that doesn’t mean that she has no right to life.
Does ones location
determine if one has a right to life?
No. Just because they are living
in the womb at the moment, which is in its proper location for its age, doesn’t
change ones nature that they are indeed a human being and the fact that they
are growing means that they are alive.
All living human beings have a right to life no matter where they may be
at a certain time in their lives. I have
as much a right to life whether I’m in bed or at work; the same applies to the
individual whether she is in the womb or in her mother’s arms.
And lastly, the
level of dependency. The fact that the
individual who is completely dependent on the mother for survival does not
determine whether he has a right to life.
If that were the case then a newborn would not have a right to life
either since it is completely dependent on someone else, usually the mother for
its survival. If level of dependency on
another for survival determines if one has a right to life means that the
killing of newborns would be morally acceptable. No rational individual would support the
killing of newborns.
Again, we can
plainly see that if it can be ascertained with a great amount of certainty that
a new human being begins its existence at the moment of fertilization, then by
virtue of believing in the right to life for all supercedes any ‘rights’ the
mother may feel she has to an abortion for whatever reason. Science has determined with certainty that a
human being does indeed begin its life at the moment of conception which means
that a mothers ‘right’ to choose to deliberately kill her developing human being
should not be allowed by law.
The right to life is
to be afforded to all living human beings simply by virtue of them being human beings. And that right to life cannot be taken away
because of their size, level of development, environment or dependency. They deserve this right because we believe
that the founders had it right; that “all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights[that cannot be taken away or denied], that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
God Bless
Nathan
Nathan
