. GOAL OF THIS POST
To explain the critical information, ideas, and logic that forms the foundation of pro-life beliefs.
The primary focus of this Thread will center on
1.) The intellectual, scientific, and logic arguments
2.) The Declaration of Independence or the legal argument all are created equal
That rationale is the following:
1) Intentionally killing an innocent human being is morally wrong.
2) Elective abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
3) Hence, elective abortion is a serious moral wrong.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
There are four basic differences between the unborn and the newly born that pro-choice advocates site as differences that are so clear and so undeniable that they are morally relevant to the point of allowing the mother with the help of her physician to take the life of her unborn child.
1.) Size.
The unborn is so small, so tiny that it is obviously not worthy of personhood or the rights afforded to human beings who are persons.
If size is the morally relevant factor, what size of human being confers the right of personhood and is the greater the size, the greater the rights. Obviously the unborn is smaller than the newborn. But the newborn is considerably smaller than the toddler. The toddler is smaller than an 8 year old.
The 8 year old considerably smaller than a teenager and so on.
Following this line of reason, then does that mean that the newborn or the infant has less right to protection under the law than the teenager or the adult? Of course not. Does Shaquil O'Neal, who is a much bigger person than Gloria Steinhem, have more rights under the law than Gloria simply because he is bigger. How exactly is size the morally relevant factor and what is the exact size that conveys personhood onto a human being. The third trimester abortion at 6 pounds is NOT less human than the premature birth child at 2 pounds. Am I more human at 6'5" and 240 lbs than a mom at 145 lbs? If yes, you buy into Darwins survival of the fittest and size and strength rule in superiority.
2.) Level of development.
It is true that the unborn is less developed than the newborn. Is this morally relevant? A newborn is considerably less well developed than a toddler. A toddler is less well developed than the adolescent and the adolescent is still less developed than the adult. Nevertheless, we speak of them all equally as persons. Puberty signifies a great phase of increase in development. Now realize the anatomical parts were there before birth. All have the same rights under the law. Development and the process of development is an important aspect of being a person but how can it define personhood.
• If robots could do all that persons do behavorially and some day they might, would they then be a person simply because they have a highly developed level of dexterity, memory or logic. These absurd conclusions follow from defining personhood based on what a being can do rather than what she is.
• Personhood stems from being. A person is one with a natural inherent capacity to give rise to personal acts even if he lacks the current ability to perform those acts. Persons who are unconscious do not have the present capacity to perform personal acts but we are not allowed to kill them nor should we be allowed to kill the unborn who is in a very similar state and condition.
3.) Environment
It is true that the unborn is located in a different place than the newborn but how does a change in location suddenly change a non-human entity into a human one. A fetus connected to the incubator of her mother's womb is no less a child than the one being sustained on an incubator in neonatal intensive care unit. A premmie on tubes is not less human than one attached to the cord.
It should be quite obvious that you do not start being a human being or stop being one simply because you have a different address.
4.) Degree of dependency.
If viability is what makes one human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers, or insulin could be declared non-persons. There is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon its mother than a kidney failure patient who is plugged into a dialysis machine. Or a patient with a head injury who is on a ventilator. Or Siamese twins who are alive and thriving. Are they eligible to forfeit their life simply because they depend upon each other's circulatory systems.
...... The unborn child differs from the newborn child in only four ways. Size, level of development, environment or location and degree of dependency. None of these differences stand the scrutiny of reason and logic for differentiating a human being who is a person from one who is not.
I posted this on another "Christian" discussion board and the attacks of the atheists fit into the 4 categories. These ideas help us break down the arguments to facts that fit in different categories.
Linear Mode
