Previously, I wrote a secular argument against abortion that left out moral judgment. For those of you who read my blog and other Catholic writings, you might come across philosophical language and theological three dollar words which at times may seem like little more than a vain attempt to sound smart. But they're actually quite necessary in conveying specific ideas and keeping clear of semantics in already complicated issues. To those of you who aren't used to the jargon, just hang on! You'll get used to it and understand why these subjects have their own terminology. I just wanted to throw that out there to whoever it applies to. Also, if you want to leave a comment in the form of a rebuttal or a counter question, all are welcome. You can be passionate, but please be respectful. I'll try to respond to any comment.
So, having said that much, this time around I would like to talk about the pro-choice ontological argument. That is, I'd like to address the pro-choice (pro-abortion) argument concerning "being." We often hear pro-abortion folks declaring that a fetus is not a human life. Without sliding into "yes it is! no it isn't!" style argumentation, I'd like to look at some of the assertions that are necessary to this stance that a fetus is not a human life. Now, I'm addressing the logic, or lack thereof, of some common pro-choice arguments. I'm not saying that everyone who is pro-choice believes these things, makes these arguments or that they don't for that matter. So, read with that in mind.
This is actually a very weak argument and I'll show you why. The pro-abortion side says," The fetus cannot live outside of the mother, it cannot live without the mother. Therefore, the mother and the fetus are synonymous biologically. Ergo, the fetus is not a human life, because it is part of the mother's body just like a fingernail, or an elbow." I don't think that any pro-choice individuals would say that I've misrepresented their argument, here.
Well, fine. Why would they point this out, though? Very obviously, it is because they wish to say convincingly what they always say," My body, my choice!" Let's look at our laws and see if they make provision for that kind of thinking, that sort of philosophy if you will. Can we do whatever we want to with our bodies, because they are our bodies? If I wanted to sell an organ, rumor has it that I could do so for thousands of dollars on the black market. But the black market is simply a phrase which means 'illegally.' Doesn't look like I can do what I want to with my own body. Or imagine that I was pulled over and given a ticket for driving without a seat belt. It's my body, why am I getting a ticket for not buckling it in? I obviously can't do what I want to with my body; it's obviously not my choice.
Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. Dr. Death, sits in prison because he agreed with a lot of people that they have the right to choose what to do with their own body. Looks like the law doesn't agree, there. And what about all those people incarcerated for drug possession and prostitution? It's their body, their choice, right? Well, the law doesn't agree. What about drugs? What about prostitution? The law doesn't agree that you have the right to do either of those "because it is your body." This is yet another reason why in my previous blog I mentioned that abortion causes hypocrisy in government. If we are allowing women to have abortions based on the idea that it is their body, their choice, then why are we disallowing these other things? Abortion keeps no continuity with our other laws; it's a contradictory and erroneous law. It's not derived reasonably from our other laws.
O.k. so I haven't made a moral argument, yet. Can you blame me? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. So, let me make an ethical argument against. An ethic of course is a moral generally agreed upon by a given society. Ethics are rapidly disappearing because of relativism. That's the real danger present in society today; it's not that we are becoming immoral. That's what the last fifty years were all about: immorality. Now, society is just becoming amoral," Morals are subjective. Who needs 'em?" they say.
Well, since ethics still exist I'll make use of them here. Another pro-abortion argument overlaps the one I just mentioned and it's that the fetus or the zygote are not human because they do not possess all of their body parts and don't function like an independent human specimen. Further, part of that assertion is what was stated previously, namely that it cannot survive independently. Their organs aren't formed completely and they don't even have a complete skeletal system. They point these things out to make the fetus or the zygote as dissimilar from a fully formed human child outside of the womb as possible, so as to make them seem like two different species of organism.
I'm going to indulge in sarcasm here and talk about the implications of those assertions. So, the fetus is not a human because it's organs don't work or aren't formed completely? Does that mean that people who have malformed hearts aren't human? Does that mean that the mentally and physically handicapped aren't human? Does that mean that people with rare bone diseases and deficiencies aren't human? Can we just kill them off, too?
What about that idea that people aren't human because they can't survive by themselves? Technically, human children are meant to survive by breastfeeding for the first portion of their lives. They still need their mother's bodies. They also need handling and affection, otherwise they die and/ or can develop serious psychological and chemical disorders. How old must a child be before it can survive independent of it's parents? Eight years old, maybe? Lot's of old people can't take care of themselves, neither can lots of invalids. There are many mentally and physically handicapped people who simply cannot survive without assistance. Some people need machines to stay alive. So, what are they trying to say? That we can just kill them off, too? They meet the criteria. Perhaps, we should bring back the practice of exposure and just leave unwanted infants for dead on hillsides to be picked apart or eaten by birds and wild animals.
And I'm not even going to mention the other subjective nonsense arguments concerning unwanted children, children born into poverty, into areas of crime. I'll just simply say, what I said above against the so-called disqualifying factors: does that mean we should kill all poor people, too? And the unwanted, whether they be elderly or in the womb? Should we just kill everyone in every ghetto in America like the Nazis did all over Europe?
You know, it sounds like they are supporting euthanasia at the same time when they support abortion. In fact, they are, de facto. But even more grotesquely the scope of who doesn't qualify as humans is astounding if we go by this definition of human life. We can kill all mentally and physically handicapped people, invalids, those on life support, all children under the age of eight, the elderly, the deformed, etc. The only people who would be classed as humans are those who are of sound body and mind, capable of surviving independent from all other human beings. Well, they'd quickly disqualify themselves, because no one who thinks that is of sound mind, unless they are pure, cold, calculating, intellectual evil.
Sounds a lot like eugenics; you know, the same thing the Nazis were all about. They say the apple never falls too far from the tree. Well, the rotten apple of modern abortion proves this maxim correct. Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a.k.a. the abortion people, was an avid activist of eugenics. She thought that criminals and the mentally handicapped should be involuntarily sterilized. She even suggested the following to congress,"Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924." She also said," The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
She was an open racist. Do you know that today, right now, you can call Planned Parenthood and tell them you want to donate specifically to black abortions? Did you know that Planned Parenthood's all over America are intentionally and strategically placed near minority and low income areas? Eugenics in action here in the 21st century and we still look to the past and wag a finger at the Nazis. Looks like her philosophical offspring still agree, even if they deny it, even if they don't realize it. Those are the implications of their arguments; eugenics and euthanasia follow necessarily from these arguments.
So, where are the legitimate arguments for abortion? What's another one we all hear," Do you want it to go back to what it was like in the past?! Back alley with a coat hanger?! Do you know how many women died and became barren because of those illegal procedures?!" What kind of argument is that? That's like if tomorrow we passed a law that said people are allowed to break into houses and steal. If people tried to repeal the law, the ones who passed the law would say," Do you want it to go back to like it was in the past?! Back when criminals had to worry about being shot?! Do you know how stressful that was?! Do you know how many thieves died over a T.V. or a gold watch?!" You'd look at them and say after a long pause," ARE YOU INSANE???" We don't alter our laws because criminals suffer the natural consequences of their actions! That's not even an argument. That's argumentum absurdum.
Almost anyone who is pro-choice would look at the consequences and logic of these common arguments and say," No! Of course I don't believe any of that is ok!" But show the logical argument for abortion, then. Show a bullet-proof, iron-clad, objective argument for abortion. I'm not trying to paint everyone with one brush stroke, but let's face it, the pro-choice side is not a theistic stance. The pro-choice movement is primarily an atheistic one. I've never met an Atheist who wasn't pro-abortion; well, maybe one, but I can't recall exactly. Anyway, this seems to be the case. So, just like the Atheists like to put the onus on theists to prove that God exists, it's up to pro-choice individuals to prove that it isn't a human life. The onus isn't on the pro-life side to show that a human life does exist. We all know what the course of nature is for a zygote, we know what the fetus becomes. There is no denying what the course of nature is; that much is evident. The onus is on the pro-abortionists to prove their correctness, because nature is the ultimate default. If you are an Atheist and a pro-choice individual, don't be a hypocrite. Just make your objective argument. Or if you don't have and argument, accept the fact that you don't have one and the next time someone asks you why you're pro-choice tell them the truth," I don't have a real reason. I just am."
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~