People that really want to have children and try to do the right thing can be shitty parents too

What is an Abortion? Webster’s dictionary defines it as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". Termination is defined as end in time or existence, so essentially the termination of a fetus is the ending or death of a fetus. Fetuses are human beings and therefore the removal of a fetus, an abortion, is wrong.
Many people don’t see that an abortion is wrong, I however disagree. Humans have rights, the right to life, freedom, and happiness. So if Fetuses are humans, shouldn’t they have the right to live? Many people don’t see Fetuses as human beings, but there are four major points that suggest otherwise. All four of these major points are in the SLED acronym.
S stands for Size. Since when has the size of a person determined if they are human or not? Hilary Clinton is much smaller than Yao Ming, or Shaq, but is she less human? No she isn’t. So when do people who are bigger get to chose if someone is smaller if they are human or not? So while yes Embryos or Fetuses are smaller than baby and adults that does not make them less human.
"Size does not equal Value". “Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights” (Klusendorf 2)
L is for Level of Development. Yes, embryos and fetuses are less developed than newborns and adults. Some might argue that because they are less developed that they are not human. Not so, because a 12 year old girl is less developed than a 30 year old woman. Does that mean that the 12 year old girl is not as human as the 30 year old woman? No, it simply does not.
“Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that were true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s disease.” (Klusendorf 2)
E is for Environment. Everyone everywhere is in a different environment, some people live in the United States, and some live in Puerto Rico. Some people may be in a hospital room, and others may be walking around outside. So just because a Fetus is in the womb does not make them less human. One person being in one room compared to another room does not make them anymore or any less human.
"If the unborn are not already human, changing their location can't make them valuable". “Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not then how can a journey of 8 inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human?" (Klusendorf 2)
D is for Dependency. A fetus is dependent on their mother, but just because they are dependent on their mother doesn’t make them less human. A lot of people are dependent on other things, for example, a diabetic is dependent on insulin, or a person might need a pacemaker. Either way these people are dependent on something, and it doesn’t make them any less human, so how is a fetus dependant on their mother any different? “If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kedney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.” (Klusendorf 2)
“In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with the respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.” (Klusendorf 2)
If you agree with the points above then Fetuses are humans, and therefore they have the Right to live. What are human rights? “Human rights are a part of international law, which is made by agreement among governments of the world. Human rights are intended to protect human freedom and dignity and represent a consensus among governments about what rights must be guaranteed to all people simply because they are human.” (Human Rights in the United States 1) Among the rights listed the right to Life and Security. So if fetuses are Human, they have the right to Life and Security, so killing them in a Abortion should be illegal since it Violates their rights.
Pro-Choice people argue that if a person has a right to life then they pose this scenario, “You wake up one morning to find yourself in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous violinist, and he has a fatal kidney ailment, and you are the only person with the correct blood type to keep him alive. So you were kidnapped and forced to sustain him, for nine months till his illness is over, technically he has the right to life, because without your help he will die. If you are pro-life you must help him because he will die if you don’t, and every human has the right to life. It may be inconvenient but you have to help him.” (Beckwith 173). Now I am going to quickly refute this how is it fair to you to be kidnapped and forced to help them? Yes they have the right to live. But they shouldn’t capture you to get you to help. That violates your rights to be forced to do this. Now you might argue, well it violates the woman’s right to be forced to carry a fetus and go through with the nine month pregnancy. Beckwith states in his book that “According to Thompson ( a women arguing against pro-lifers) the pregnant woman consented to sex but not to the pregnancy that followed if she did not intend to have children.” Beckwith then later states “Just as opening my window for the pleasure of fresh air does not entitle a burglar to my belongings even though while opening the window it was foreseeable that a burglar might crawl through the window wanted to steal from me, engaging in sex for pleasure does not entitle the fetus to the pregnant woman’s body even though while engaging in sex it was foreseeable that an unborn human being might result needing the preganant woman’s body for survival.” (Beckwith 174)I agree with Beckwith, how can you justify an abortion if you know that there is a possibility that the woman can get pregnant even though the pregnancy is not expected? You can’t, Thompsons argument about the Violinist is absurd, and it extremely unlikely.
“Abortion should be outlawed because abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, it should be outlawed by the government, whose main duty is to protect the common good and thus the fundamental right to life, from conception/fertilization until natural death.” (Torr 114)
From a standpoint of those who are pro-choice there is one major drawback to if abortion were to become illegal. Women would still go look for abortions, just because it isn’t legal doesn’t mean it won’t stop. It is stated in “Abortion Opposing Viewpoints” that “If Roe vs. Wade is overturned women are hurled back into the dark days when women who need access to safe abortion services must once again risk their lives and health to get it. Children whose mothers are not fortunate enough to get an abortion safely will lose their mothers. The woman who bleeds to death from a botched abortion could be your sister, your best friend, your daughter or your favorite aunt. Those who seek abortion and do not die, suffer hideous infections from non-sterile instructions along with the permanent adverse health effects and personal stigma of illegal abortion.” (Torr 103). This argument only proves useful if and only if women illegally get an abortion, if they follow the law then this argument proves useless.
Torr goes on to say “Those women risk life imprisonment. Women’s education, career options and personal freedom are curtailed because they are pregnant for their entire reproduction lives. Women cannot make reproductive choices that are fundamental to their lives and dignity. Only the wealthy can escape with their dignity because they always have, and always will have access to safe abortion.” (Torr 103)There are alternatives to this as well. Women are not imprisoned by this because they can put the baby up for adoption rather than killing it. Then they can get back on their feet, seek new job opportunities or go back to college, either way, they are not imprisoned.
In conclusion if you accept these points and references that have been presented then you agree and believe that Fetuses are human Beings. Therefore since Fetuses are human beings the removal of the Fetus, an abortion, is wrong and should be illegal because it violates the human right to live.

I don't get it, the pro-lifers base their views on both a belief in the sanctity of life, and an unwillingness to make a decision for another party (the unborn child) that will have a lasting impact on their life.

But they do want to make a decision for another party (pregnant women) in outlawing abortion that will have a lasting impact on their life.

How is this any more complicated than "if you oppose abortion, don't get one?"

Right to life my friend, Who says that the womans right is greater than the childs? Arent all men (and women) created equally?

Hammy, I posted the picture of my daughter for that very reason. If her father had had his way, she would have been tossed in a biohazard bin as a zygote and forgotten about.


I really do respect people's choices, but that choice should most definitely include the reality of snuffing out the life of the baby...adoption is ALWAYS an option. Did I want a baby when I had my daughter? Absolutely NOT...but she has been the blessing of my life and I can't ever imagine life without her.

Incidentally, her father died of a herione overdose three years ago yesterday. I don't know why I needed to say that, just thought I'd put it out there...for whatever reason. It was a weird day for me.

Thats a great picture of your daughter. What about your other kids, you know, all the ones you've adopted to help people decide not to have abortions?




I think you mentioned it to put his opinion on abortion, and his HEROIN usage on the same plane, as if all people who believe in a womans right to choose are also smack addicts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but thats how it came off to me.

Right, but if it's not your child, or your family member's child why all the fuss? How can you justify making that sort of decision for someone else, which is what you do if you overturn Roe v. Wade.

A few stem cells multiplying in someone's belly aren't a human being, in my respectful opinion. If the abortion occurs very shortly after fertilization, I'm ok with that, although proper birth control would have been the smartest thing to do. Maybe put a hefty tax on abortions to make people be more responsible??

Just my .20

Jesus, CV, can't you see where this argument is coming from? What if I said that people all over the country were murdering their mentally handicapped children in their sleep. Would you say, "Why all the fuss?" If one side of the debate sees the fetus as a human being, that equates to murder. And you better believe people are going to put up a fuss in that situation.

It comes down to prioritizing rights. You can say that a woman has a right to protect her body from intrusion by the government, but the argument is that the right of the child to live supercedes that right.

Ham

And to be clear, I can see the viewpoint of those who murder abortion doctors as entirely logical based on their belief.

Ham

I think comparing the mentally handicapped to a fetus is kind of insulting to the mentally handicapped. I don't see pro-life advocates trying to clean up the shitty areas of their cities or speaking out against gang violence. Nor do I see them picketing the war in Iraq or capital punishment. All of which are rather clear cut instances of murder that lack any ambiguity, are worthy causes, don't piss anyone off, and don't beget more violence. (Like the murder of abortion doctors).

What about donating to cancer research, the American Red Cross, and several other charities to help prevent those causes of death.

CV, you really don't even try to see the other side's point of view, do you? The war in Iraq, capital punishment? What the f...? What does any of that have to do with abortion?

You've fallen off the deep end a bit, I think, on this one. Yeah, I'm sure 0% of those who are pro-life refuse to donate to cancer research. You're grasping at straws because you know, if you actually were to look at it from the point of view that a fetus is a human being replete with all natural rights that implies, then you wouldn't be able to ridicule those with whom you don't agree.

I think you've got serious prejudice against people who are pro-life and it is clouding your ability to participate in the debate on the topic. You've made some pretty derogatory generalizations in that post, and it seems petty.

And to be clear, I can see the viewpoint of those who murder abortion doctors as entirely logical based on their belief.

I don't think any of what I said was derogatory. The National Right to Life's mission statement only discusses abortion, it doesn't discuss any number of other causes of death. Now granted there are organizations that do broaden their views to include all life, but in most cases the focus is on abortion and other worthy (note: worthy, not necessarily worthier) causes go ignored.

Well that just seems like hypocrisy. If you believe that all life is sacred, how can you justify any murder. You can say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but how can a right to life organization achieve any credibility if it goes against its own tenets and kills someone?