Friday, August 29, 2014

Explainig Why Abortion is Wrong While Avoiding Religious Terms

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

No comments:

Post a Comment