Unfortunately, that's the approximate number of people who have been killed this year. Not by war crimes, not by capital crimes, and not by global warming, but by Doctors in Abortion Clinics. Why are all of these human beings being slaughtered by the tens of thousands daily? To further women's freedom rights to be every bit as stupid and irresponsible as some men. Apparently, while it is cruel and heartless to allow people to choose their own health care, it would also be cruel and heartless to forbid women the "right" to choose whether the babies they conceive live or die. (But only before they give birth. I guess they're just trying to save women the discomfort of labor pains or something.) Although this is somewhat of a mystery to me, I suppose it makes perfect sense to an absurdists or a nihilist, as most liberals are, whether they admit it or not.
The liberals to give lip service to reason, though. They claim that babies are somehow inhuman before they exit the womb and are therefore more like an annoying dandelion or some other kind of weed than a human being made in the image of God. On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense if you believe in Evolution (which doesn't make sense at all) because to all atheists, people can only assume a status as a animal of higher intelligence than others. Although this puts us at the top of the food chain, it does not give any reason why human life should be considered sacred or valuable. Of course, this is a rather untenable position because it basically gives everyone permission to kill you, which most people would rather not have happen to them. So, excluding complete ethical Nihilism, that justification is illogical.
However, most pro-death people hold the belief that a human fetus is not human, like a baby outside the womb. Unfortunately (for pro-death proponents) this argument is rather hard to defend as well. There are only a few consequential differences between a fetus and a baby. Perhaps the most obvious is location. While the fetus resides in the womb, an infant resides outside the womb. Although this difference is a nice distinction, it offers no moral distinction. After all, how illogical would it be if someone could only kill you when you were in the shower? That would be rather difficult to justify, as is abortion.
One difference that many employ is that a fetus is incapable of consciousness on the same level as an adult. This is a rather unjustifiable as well. After all, if someone killed a person in a temporary coma, they would be tried for murder. After all, a person in a temporary coma is, like a fetus, currently unconscious but capable of gaining consciousness. Furthermore, one might say that a sleeping person is in a temporary coma, why isn't it legal to kill them? However you spin this, I would say that consciousness is an extremely bad way of determining humanity or moral rights, unless you never sleep and are confident that you'll never black out. Even then, it doesn't seem fair to those other people who rely on sleep, or have not yet gained consciousness for the first time.
Hmmm. I'm afraid that those are the only reasons for legal abortion I can think of. If you know of a reason I didn't touch on or have a critique of my arguments please respond and let me know.
The liberals to give lip service to reason, though. They claim that babies are somehow inhuman before they exit the womb and are therefore more like an annoying dandelion or some other kind of weed than a human being made in the image of God. On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense if you believe in Evolution (which doesn't make sense at all) because to all atheists, people can only assume a status as a animal of higher intelligence than others. Although this puts us at the top of the food chain, it does not give any reason why human life should be considered sacred or valuable. Of course, this is a rather untenable position because it basically gives everyone permission to kill you, which most people would rather not have happen to them. So, excluding complete ethical Nihilism, that justification is illogical.
However, most pro-death people hold the belief that a human fetus is not human, like a baby outside the womb. Unfortunately (for pro-death proponents) this argument is rather hard to defend as well. There are only a few consequential differences between a fetus and a baby. Perhaps the most obvious is location. While the fetus resides in the womb, an infant resides outside the womb. Although this difference is a nice distinction, it offers no moral distinction. After all, how illogical would it be if someone could only kill you when you were in the shower? That would be rather difficult to justify, as is abortion.
One difference that many employ is that a fetus is incapable of consciousness on the same level as an adult. This is a rather unjustifiable as well. After all, if someone killed a person in a temporary coma, they would be tried for murder. After all, a person in a temporary coma is, like a fetus, currently unconscious but capable of gaining consciousness. Furthermore, one might say that a sleeping person is in a temporary coma, why isn't it legal to kill them? However you spin this, I would say that consciousness is an extremely bad way of determining humanity or moral rights, unless you never sleep and are confident that you'll never black out. Even then, it doesn't seem fair to those other people who rely on sleep, or have not yet gained consciousness for the first time.
Hmmm. I'm afraid that those are the only reasons for legal abortion I can think of. If you know of a reason I didn't touch on or have a critique of my arguments please respond and let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment