Great Pro Life Argument Based on the Core Assumption of Abortion

The core assumption of abortion is that the laws we write have the power to determine who is human.

It leads to the secondary assumption that if our laws say that a whole segment of the human population is not human enough to be worthy of the most basic human right of all human beings — the right to life — then that is, because the law says it, true.

This is a lie, and on this lie abortion builds its house.

YouTube Preview Image

  • Bill S

    The bottom line is that no one has the right to force a woman to carry and bear a child against her will. She has that basic human right. A fertilized egg / embryo / fetus does not. Once that right has been secured by her government, no one will ever take it away from her. The ones who call that tyranny are, ironically, the ones seeking to impose tyranny on that woman. They will never succeed.

    • http://acatholicviewoftheworld.wordpress.com/ Roki

      The dispute is exactly over what constitutes the bottom line. You dispute the basic human right of “a fertilized egg / embryo / fetus” to not be killed; pro-life advocates dispute that not being “forced to carry and bear a child against her will” is a basic human right, or at least that it is a more basic human right than the right to not be killed.

      Is there any common ground that we can agree on to have a rational discussion? Can we agree, at least, that each of us is defending something truly good and worthy of the name “human right”?

      Can we discuss what a “human right” is, where it comes from, and what role governments have in defining/promoting/protecting them? I think we would find that there is some basic disagreement about the terms themselves, and what they mean. Discovering those disagreements might lead to understanding each other’s arguments, and maybe even to resolving the priority of these competing rights. It might lead to a practical solution.

      Or is there no common ground at all? Is this nothing more than a shouting match? Is it only might that makes right?

      • hamiltonr

        I think we can agree that the baby and the mother are both human beings. How is that for a start?

        • http://acatholicviewoftheworld.wordpress.com/ Roki

          Much more succinct than what I said. Yes, this is an excellent starting point.

          • Bill S

            Well, human rights are identified by governments and world organizations such as the United Nations. Whatever they say supersedes any and all religions. In my opinion, to occupy and feed off another human being is something that the other human being must choose to allow. It is not a basic human right. As soon as a fetus is viable outside of the womb, I think it has a basic human right to its survival and the parents have a responsibility to bring it to adulthood.

            • Guest

              You acknowledge that governments and organisations “identify” human rights. They attempt to recognise what is foundational and essential to the respect of human persons. Governments and world organisations are not transcendent entities, but merely conglomerates of personal and fallible opinions like your own. The philosophy you and many others are espousing is a “might makes right” position. Sexually active individuals confront the living result of sexual activity and have the means to end that life. This is utilitarianism. A society that allows its members to selectively kill is initiating a cycle of violence that has parameters that are not entirely predictable within the confines of natural science. Man is a discretionary being, not a fully instinctual being. Animals behave according to the pressures and circumstances of the natural order. Man must choose actions that are beyond the scope of instinct. These choices are what we call morality. Setting a value on human life that is discretionary is inherently fallible. If the line is drawn and redrawn according to custom and convenience, there are no universally binding protections for human life. Some utilitarians believe that lowering the value of human life will create a parity between animals and humans. In their view, all life has similar worth. This is deemed to be a raising and improvement of the treatment

              • Bill S

                Governments and world organisations are not transcendent entities, but merely conglomerates of personal and fallible opinions like your own.

                Very true. The best governments are of the people, by the people and for the people and do not rely on transcendent beings to make it rule. It is not “might makes right” unless the military and not the people is in charge.

                • Maria

                  Actually, I tried to remove my unfinished comment. I will however answer your gloss. Might makes right here means the will of the more powerful, in this case either the mother or whoever is behind the abortion. The unborn infant has no defence except the law and/or the good will of the mother and her support. The picture you paint of a semi-parasitic life form inhabiting the body of an unwilling victim is a distortion of the nature of sexuality. In most cases, the mother engaged in sexual behaviour intentionally and that behaviour has a natural consequence. Your idea of powerful individuals endowing themselves with the right to kill the vulnerable is the lead-in to the end of the political and legal order you seem to value. Absolute sovereignty over the life of another human being, even if you have difficulty in realising their humanity, is a wide open window to a legion of abuses of law.

                  • Bill S

                    In most cases, the mother engaged in sexual behaviour intentionally and that behaviour has a natural consequence.

                    Is that your justification for trying to deprive women of this basic human right? It’s a judgmental moralist attitude that turns people off to Catholicism.

                    • hamiltonr

                      Bill, you’re playing games. The “justification” is that this “right” is the right to kill a child and that is wrong. Laws that allow people to kill whole groups of innocent people are always wrong. That humanity 101 Bill.

                    • Bill S

                      Laws that allow people to kill whole groups of innocent people are always wrong.

                      There is no such law. What there is is a court decision that protects women from being forced to carry a fertilized egg to maturity. I don’t know if it is different in other countries.

                      Catholics assign a value to a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus that is inconsistent with that assigned to it by secular societies which do not base their judgments on any religion.

                    • hamiltonr

                      The Supreme Court decision you refer to is exactly such a law Bill.

                    • Bill S

                      To me, a decision by the Supreme Court is an interpretation of the law of the land by those with the highest authority to make such interpretations. There is no higher authority (since there is no God and therefore no inerrancy to the Bible and no infallibility to the Catholic Church).

                    • FW Ken

                      Actually, lots of non-Catholics, non-Christians, and some of the “Nones” are against abortion. You obsession with the Catholic Church is leading you into irrelevance.

                      http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

                      Also, the pro-choice churches are collapsing – the Episcopalians have lost 25% of Sunday attendance in the last decade. Obviously, the pro-choice option is turning people off.

                    • Bill S

                      Ken,

                      People understand the Church’s position on abortion. It is statements like “In most cases, the mother engaged in sexual behaviour intentionally and that behaviour has a natural consequence” that turn people off because they are judgments and moralistic.

                    • FW Ken

                      The numbers don’t support you claim. To repeat myself: the pro-choice churches are dying, the pro-life churches are growing, or at least holding their own.

                    • Maria

                      There is nothing moralistic in a direct acknowledgement of reality. If you eat, you input calories and benefit from the energy. If you have sex, you receive livings cells whose whole purpose for existence is to fertilise a ripened ova. I am not an animal. My behaviour is not entirely instinctual. I know what will happen when I eat and when I have sex. If I was a fully instinctual animal, I would neither have the ability to realise the result of my behaviour or interfere with the results. Human beings have the capacity to understand consequences. I do not run up my credit card account beyond my ability to pay it off. If I do, you would insist that I pay it off, I assume, even if that would mean considerable hardship for me. Not paying my bill would have economic consequences that are serious, but killing an unborn child has much more devastating consequences to the society as a whole. I cannot assist you in seeing this obvious consequence if you are unable by your own insistence to understand or accept it. It appears that you have a good will and believe what you are saying. It is very sad that your religious bigotry will not allow you to observe reality in an effective manner.

                    • Bill S

                      Mistakes happen. Do you insist that a mistake not be correctable?

                    • Maria

                      In your disturbing para-reality, human beings are the mistakes. Your statement translates to: “Human beings happen. It is legal to eliminate them, therefore it is quite alright to do so.” Killing an innocent human being is murder, no matter what we write in our legal code. Many evil things have been legal at one time or another. This is one of those times and you are supporting an objective evil.

                    • Bill S

                      Killing an innocent human being is murder, no matter what we write in our legal code.

                      For something to be murder, it has to be illegal. That is the definition of murder.

                      Unintentionally geting pregnant is a mistake that a woman should have right to correct. It really is that simple.

                      There are those trying to take that right away for ideological reasons. They must be ignored.

                    • Bill S

                      killing an unborn child has much more devastating consequences to the society as a whole.

                      I think making abortion illegal would have more devastating consequences. It seems that if you had it your way, that’s what would happen.

        • Sus_1

          I thinks lots of women who get abortions think they are aborting a human being. The women are in desperate situations and think abortion is better than allowing the baby to be born. If we fix those situations, there will be many less abortions. People will be more willing to make abortions illegal if women aren’t in desperate situations.

          • Bill S

            It shouldn’t have to be a “desperate situation” for a woman to be allowed to have an abortion. It is her right to choose what goes on in her own body. I recognize that you are recommending a more proactive approach. But if it is inconvenient to have a child and convenient to take a morning after pill or have an abortion at a clinic, no one should deny that right.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Charity, indeed, is the best weapon we have against abortion.

  • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

    It seems more that the core assumption of abortion is that (for good or ill) the laws we write have the power to codify who (or what) is recognized as a having rights before the law.

    The examples of racism, sexism, and other ethnocentric bigotries indicate by implication some cases with hazards of false negatives on this recognition. Contrariwise, listing them does not preclude the possibility that there can also be hazards from false positives; it’s primarily Attitude Bolstering to list them.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X