The question must be approached logically.
There are two questions that must be answered.
1.Are fetuses human?
2.Do the gains gained by a women destroying the fetus outweigh the price of the fetus’ destruction?
The first answer depends on how we define the word “human”. Let us say a few possible definitions.
Scientific Definition=A member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Rational Definition=Any creature whose parents were a Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Religious Definition=Any sentient being descended from Adam.
Under any definition, the fetus counts as “Human”. It is genetically a member of the human race, its parents are humans, and it is a descendant of Adam.
Whether they would count as “sentient” would require another argument, but the fetus does count as a human being.
The second answer depends on this
What good is gained by the woman by destroying the baby? (being that it human, I will no longer refer to it/him/her as a “fetus” for the remainder of my argument)
What good does the baby lose by facing destruction?
The first question has already been answered by others. The woman gains wealth, political power, education, an occupation, and greater social standing.
The second question is obvious. The child loses all potential wealth, political power, education, occupation, and social standing, as well as life, and its rightful inheritance in this world.
So the woman would be depriving a fellow member of the human race of all his possible goods, for the sake of increasing her own good, for no other reason than his place of residence, which (except in case of rape), was entirely her own doing.
This is obviously morally wrong. The woman has sacrificed a life to make her life better. A human life is more precious than silver, and a mind is worth more than much gold. Better two live men in a slum, than one live man in a palace, and another man dead.
The only moral defenses in favor of abortion in any form, at any time, is that the child is not a human, or that it lowers the woman’s standard of living.
The first objection is false by any definition of “human”, the second is an insult to justice, when one considers that any standard of living increase bought in blood is not worth having. A few considerations
- The claim that women lose liberties if they cannot kill an unborn baby is correct. However, the same is also true with children of any age. Having children can be a major obstacle to gaining wealth, power, or social standing. It can also be a barrier to gaining political office. It is supposed to be that way. By having children (by having sex really) one is agreeing to put the needs and wants of one’s offspring or spouse above one’s own. If I choose to marry and have sons and daughters, I am agreeing to put my wife and children’s needs above my own. If a man and his family is in poverty and there isn’t enough food to go around, there is chain of people’s needs that go before his own. First his father (who would die without food fastest, and is the reason any of them are there), then his children, then his wife, and then himself. It is the same with a woman who chooses to have sex (or even, has sex forced upon her). She has a moral duty to her children to put their needs ahead of her own. If she must lose wealth, or health, or property, or friends, or family, or power, or even life itself, she should take this task with honor. The state cannot force her, however, to be this virtuous. However it does have at least this much power. That it should force her to give birth to her children, then let her either keep them, or send them away to an orphanage or some infertile people who would love a son or daughter.
Although you may see this as harsh, or even tyrant-like, we must admit that every human being has the right to life.
-
I am not sure if it technically counts as a genocide, but it does have many of the characteristics of one. It has a death toll in the millions worldwide, with much of that coming out of the United States. It is done on a group with a similar identifying trait (extreme youth). It is done (supposedly) for the greater good of society, or the individual. And its victims are constantly denied their humanity, or reduced to sub-human status.
-
Yes, I am a fundamentalist Christian, but I am also a rationalist, and have made only logical arguments, and not (obviously) religious ones. Therefore please do not dismiss my arguments simply because I am Christian.
4.Children in the womb might be sentient, I am not sure (another argument ), but I’d say they probably are. At least as much so as a two year old, or similar child. In any case this has no effect on my argument.
