Argument Against Abortion

Argument against Abortion.At conception; life is born. I hold life to be sacred, so a framework of my argument must be based on a moral approach. To take this into consideration, and understand that human life is sacred, I must prove that a fetus/child is a human, a person and alive. Scripture supports the moral decision of taking innocent life, so instead of taking this morale argument (which would get nowhere with someone who does not agree with that morale standpoint), I’ll need to prove instead (without scripture) that it’s truly alive.Protestant (Didache teaches against it), Catholic (Church states it to be a grave sin), Hinduism (One of 6 kinds of murder in Hindu culture. Teaches a fetus as being alive and needing protection), Islam (Teaches against murder, same 40 days and Judaism), And Judaism (Halakah, or Jewish law, states that a fetus is not alive until 40 days, so you could say Judaism is split on the issue)

That’s some kind of framework of a morale argument against it, but we shall look at how a fetus is both human and alive; which would then allow us to state that human life is being taken; which would then allow us to presume that murder is being committed (which breaks US law and warrants disciplinary action).

The Scenario: In 2000, approximately 857,000 abortions were committed (1). Average abortion ratio: 246/1000 livebirths (2). 58% of these were done under 9 weeks gestation. 88% of abortions were done under 13 weeks gestation (3). Since the majority is done at this level, we’ll focus on that 13-14 week timeline.I will start by laying down the argument as follows:There can only really be two arguments. You either believe that human life starts and becomes a person at conception (granting it civil rights), or that personhood starts after a baby is born (functioning independent of it’s mother, sentient, etc) .

Before you or I can even enter a discussion, we must have definitions of terms. If we do not contain definitions, than we cannot even communicate effectively:Terms I find extremely important to the abortion debate is Human Life, Human Person, Murder, and Life.Human Life: This is any living entity that has DNA from the species homo sapiens (1).

This includes: Zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, teen, adult, and elder. People hold different values of life on these stages. You hold value on the stages after birth, while we hold value on the stages after conception.Human Person: This is any human life that is considered to be a person. Our laws and constitution grant human person civil rights. One of these rights is the right to life. The disagreement is that an embryo/unborn child doesn’t become a person until after birth, and thus doesn’t contain those civil rights given to all of us. This is the core disagreement.

Murder: This is the pre-determined or simply the act of taking a human life. This act of murder is the act of trampling upon someone’s civil rights; which relates to the civil right of life. Our government finds us at value as human persons, and protects us from murder.

 

The arguments: Is an unborn baby/fetus alive? If it is alive is it a human life? If it’s a human life is it a human person? If it’s a human person then the act of removing it’s life is removing it’s civil rights and thus committing murder. If I can get through those phases and reach the end, than I can conclude that abortions (ending the life of the fetus entity which is human, alive, and a person) is immoral, illegal, and protected by our civil rights.

I. Life

 

0.a. Any form of living animal or vegetable.b. life (lif) Pronunciation Key (*1)

0.b. pl. lives (livz) The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

0.c. Our fetus/unborn child is obviously alive. It is not inanimate matter because over time it grows and displays motion. By this textbook definition, we know that it’s alive, but can it be considered human life?

II. Human Life

0.a. What makes it a human life? I believe it needs to follow certain characteristics to be a human life and thus a human person:”…is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism,growth,reaction to stimuli, andreproduction.” (4)

0.b. Metabolism: It contains the function of a metabolism (as it seeks nutrients from food supplied by a mother, and contains a self-governed method of processing these nutrients)

0.b. Growth: It has the ability of growth. Nothing new will be added from the moment of conception to the unborn child. Upon conception, the child contains all the chromosomes needed for it’s growth, personality, height, characteristics, etc. All that is needed to fulfill the plan of it’s DNA is time, and nutrient/food. Over time it grows it’s ligaments, nerves, bones, etc. A key here is that nothing will be added after conception: rather it just needs to grow.

0.c. Reproduction: It’s DNA already contains the functions it will need to design that needed to reproduce at puberty.

0.d. Response to stimuli: This is something overlooked. Many believe an unborn baby is not a alive because it has no pain stimuli, but that is untrue. It contains a pain circuit (connection of nerves from a sense, such as he olfactory nerve) to the brain at early stages in it’s first trimester. This, and the addition of other nerves in the head, feet, hands, gives it the pain-stimuli required to be alive.

0.e. Adaptation to the environment: A child is able to develop taste buds in the tongue during the first trimester, and studies have down (in the mid to upper portions of a pregnancy) that an unborn baby is able to learnt not to intake sour fluids injected in the mother, and well as desire sweeter fluids.

0.f. With this, I can show that the fetus is obviously alive. It is part of the Homo sapient species, and displays all those characteristics to grant it life. The only issue now is that the entity is not a human person, and even though it’s alive, it does not contain the civil rights that a human person does.

III. So when does human personhood begin?

0.a. As a pro-abortionist, you must be able to make the claim that the fetus has no personhood. To do this, you must show how non-persons can turn into persons.

0.b. As a pro-lifer, I must prove that personhood is developed before birth. Human personhood begins at conception. Here all DNA is set to fully guide the development of the unborn child. All 42 chromosomes are in place, and all that is needed is nutrients and time. This is the genetic view that human lies starts at conception (5)

0.c. Now we must look at the stages of growth. Remembering that 88% of abortions are conducted at the end of 14 weeks, we look at the time period. And what are we looking for? We are trying to identify those things that make an unborn child the same as the rest of us. We are looking for those things that make the unborn child alive, and a human person.

0.d. For times sake, we’ll look at a handful that support our claim that this indeed is human life, and thus warrant sit being a human person and having civil rights.

0.5 Weeks:the olfactory nerve, which is integral to the sense of smell, is present on the 35th day after conception.-Pain receptors appear in the mouth

0.6 Weeks:The foundation of the sense of smell is established on the 39th day when nerve fibers in the brain connect with the olfactory lobe-Development of Neocortex (largest portion of the brain)-This is extremely important because all the parts in in place to complete pain circuitry.-This means a child has developed the ability to feel pain in late gestation.

0.8 Weeks:-At eight weeks after conception, local stimuli can induce partial closing of the fingers, opening of the mouth, and squinting.-Taste buds-More taste buds unborn than a born child.

0.9 Weeks:-Pain receptors appear in Face, palms, and soles of the feet.10 Weeks:Response to sounds. This shows it’s ability to react with it’s environment.

0.11 Weeks:the child will open its mouth and suck a finger.-pain pathways are running from sensory receptors in the skin to those in the brain.An unborn child can quickly develop the organs and systems a born child does. It contains the ability to exert motion like a newborn. It contains senses. It can learn. These support those definitions called upon to be considered human life. With this only in the early stages of development, how can we not consider it human life? Like the rest of us, it merely requires time to grow and nutrients to keep it’s group. It contains the ability to produce it’s cell’s, and shows all those things that we ourselves use to define ourselves as being alive.

 

IV. Is this murder?

 

0.a. mur..der [mur-der] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation..noun1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

0.b. Do I consider this the murder of a human person who is alive? Yes. Do I consider this to be against our civil liberties? Yes. 

 

Why is any of this important? It is of dire importance because we are discussing life here. About 3000 fetus’ (correct my math if you can) are eliminated every day through abortion. If this is true, and the fetus is considered alive, than we would be ending 3000 potential lives. If this fetus is human life, than not only are we eliminating the life of an entity, but we are eliminating our own species. If you grant these personhoods, as I explained, than we are committing a mass murder and merely ignoring it. It’s a rather grave issue. We grant human life as the most valuable gift in the world (granted through Gods, religions, and governments). To ignore the removal of this gift to individuals who cannot defend themselves is immoral. It places mankind in the position to defend the death, the mute, and those who cannot defend themselves. In a court of law, our government provides a lawyer at a human’s defense, if this human cannot defend itself. As humans, we must take on this position, and step forward to defend those whose voices cannot be heard.

This stretches beyond the issue of “I am a woman and it is my body”. In respects to that comment, we are very well discussing the right of a body; yet this body is that unborn child. Just as the woman holds rights to her form, so does a child hold those same civil rights; whether it is in the womb or not.Since we can consider the unborn child alive, part of our homo sapient species, and a human person, than our government has granted it the same civil rights that those carrying the child have.It is our duty to make sure the value of life, and of human beings, is protected. An unborn baby has the right to live, as do the rest of us.

God Bless.

Leonard O Goenaga

NOTICE: THIS IS NOT THE FULL ARGUMENT, AS IT IS INCOMPLETE. I WOULD BE PUTTING THE INFORMATION FROM THE MEDICAL DICTIONARIES DOWN AT A LATER TIME, AND TAKE THINGS SUCH AS HOMOSAPIEN, etc, AS GIVEN. IN NO WAYS IS THIS IN A FINAL STAGE. I NEED TO SEE RESPONSES AGAINST IT SO I CAN EDIT IT FURTHER. IF I DONT RESPOND IM SORRY, AS I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DO SO.

1) “Abortion surveillance – U.S., 1998,” National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/

2) “Fact Sheet: Abortion Surveillance,” CDC, 2002-JUN-7, at: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media

3) Division of Reproductive Health

of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion4) Francis Beckwith, “Is the unborn human less than human?*

1) American statistics are listed by Baptists for Life, Inc. at: http://www.bfl.org/stats*1) Dictionary.com5) http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Argument Against Abortion

  1. I would agree that abortion is wrong, however you have to look at the fact that there maybe certain reasons why one whould have an abortion. Was the woman raped, was it a child of incest, will the baby have complications, will the baby end the woman’s life if child birth occurs? To look at it as only murder is being quite close minded. As how to a nonperson can turn into a person is quite easy. We personify things all the time. People call their boats and cars by names like Betty or Sue. People in some instances even treat these nonpersons even better than thier own spouses. As for the characteristics that make a person, those are all common in every organism that lives in this world. From the little bug that scuttles across my keyboard to mocking bird that wakes me up in the mornining to the person that is typing this comment.

  2. I have a feeling you didn’t read the argument (which I could understand since it’s long).

    You mentioned a non-person, which the argument was showing how it’s not a non-person, but a human being with the same potential to grow as any one of us. It’s also classified as a human being, and and being alive, by the textbook definitions of life and homo-sapien sapien.

    You made a self-contradictory statement: A fetus is not a nonperson, yet you claim at the end you’re a nonperson. You state you’re merely a person being you attribute personhood to yourself. I don’t need to point out how extremely silly that is. To compare a fetus, or preborn child, to a rock or a bird is a ridiculous comparison.

    As for rape and incest, or death, please do research on that number. When you look at the 5,000,000+ abortions done since the Iraq war, and you compare it to the EXTREME minority of the cases you’re listed with, your argument is a soggy cookie. Still cannot justice the OVERWHELMING majority of abortions done simply out of the lack of desire of having a child. You’d be amazed with the amount of individual who use it as a form of birthcontrol.

    You need to re-evaluate you’re statements. If you’re a nonperson, then there’s no need to type the comment in the first place. I’m trying to talk to people, not objects 😀

  3. First off I happen to like soggy cookies…you know cookies dipped in milk. And to start off you metioned what is human life… Response to stimuli, DNA. etc. Those are all things that organisms have in common. So there must be something else that defines a human, otherwise life is just life. To clarify I will quote you ” …needs to follow certain characteristics to be a human life, thus a human person…” you then go on to list metabolism, growth, and so on. Again what is human life? Is it to have a conscious? What is a conscious?

    I never said I was a boat or a car, just that we personify things all the time. You challanged us to prove how can a nonperson become a person. I then mentioned how we can make things more human than they really are. I know people who cry when they sell their car. Cry as much as though they had lost a loved one. I understand that a boat or a car isn’t a person but only that we sometimes treat things with more rights than they deserve.

    I resent the fact that you would call the other side of the argument as “pro-abortionist”; no one is for killing babies. Thats ludacris. People are for the choice that is AVAILABLE. And the last time I checked there wasn’t a box that you checked for why you were having an abortion. One will never know how many abortions were done for any reason. Just like no one knows how many illegals we have in our country at any given time. 5 million is a big number, but so are the statistics that are in that number. The reason I mentioned the rape, incest, and death is because the whole point to have this argument is beacuse the argument is about whether or not abortion should be legal. You mentioned that there should be justice served for those unborn children. Well if you ban abortion, what will happen. Abortion will be completely illegal, no matter what the reason. Then people will preform abortions either on themsleves or a black market will spring up to fill the void. I would rather have a certified person preform an abortion, rather than a coat hanger.

  4. The argument when comparing a car, or a boat, or a fetus is still the same. The argument is obviously not about personafying a fetus. You compare the personaification of a fetus and that of a car. However, i’m sure you can see the clear difference between the two. In case you can’t, as I explain the the argument, one is obviously Human and the other is not. The argument is that one is a human life, and human life is the absolute natural right of any human-being and individual. A humans right to life trumps over someone’s privacy rights. By making the argument that the fetus is human, it’s right to life surpasses someones right to privacy. The argument I laid out does to show exactly WHY a fetus is a human being, and alive, and thus protected by this inalienable right. It’s silly to try to base an argument by detracting from any of this, and comparing vehicles with the beginning stages of the human being.

    How do you define being pro anything? Did I say you’re Pro-Baby Killing? Of course not. However, if you would support the action of an abortion, you could be a pro-abortionist. You have to look at the definition of ‘pro’. For your convinience I laid it out here:

    1. in favor of a proposition, opinion, etc.
    –noun
    2. a proponent of an issue; a person who upholds the affirmative in a debate.
    3. an argument, consideration, vote, etc., for something.

    Are you in favor of argumenting for abortion? Of course, you’re doing it right now. In that case, you’re proving you’re pro-abortion in the sense that you uphold the argument of the right of having an abortion in this very comment.

    Actually abortion numbers are public information. Of course you can’t have names, but it’s reported to the federal government. They’re given out by The Center For Disease Control.

    Exp: 853,485 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2001.

    You can look it up: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

    As for a ‘what if’ argument, you’re still not addressing the problem of whether it is wrong or not, and whether we’re destroying human life. People will still go out and murder, so why have laws preventing it? I’m sure you can see the flaw in logic here.

    In the end, this is a civil rights case, however the exception is that those whose primal civil right (that to life) is being violated, do not have the means to speak for themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s