Pre-game chit chat
13/01/08 13:40
Well, before
going out last night, the issue of abortion came up
somehow. And no, it wasn't me who started it. Great
talk for a Friday night, right?
Here are four of the main arguments a few people put up in favor of abortion, followed by my answers of why they're wrong.
1) Just put yourself in her shoes. Your life would be ruined. 9 months of hell on your body. You'd have to quit school. You, as a guy, can leave, but the mother can't.
2) Think of the cost? How could you afford it?
3) What about rape victims?
4) To convince me that abortion is legal, you'd first have to convince people like me that a first-trimester fetus is a person.
1a) No one every said life is fair. It's not. And an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy wouldn't entirely ruin one's life. It would definitely be a painful, stressful, and costly nine months. But that nine months shouldn't determine whether or not the life of a human being is taken. In the case where a mother couldn't afford the child or simply didn't want it, the child should be put up for adoption. There are thousands of couples waiting for newborn children to adopt. I know one such couple continually advertises in the Georgetown Hoya newspaper and at mass on Sundays. I'm sure any adopted child, no matter his or her circumstances, would later in life agree that they're happy to be alive rather than having never been given the chance to live.
Before even discussing the problems with the pregnancy, it should be understood that when two people have sex, they should be implicitly agreeing that they are willing to take care of the potential consequences of that action, whether it be disease, distress, or pregnancy. The careless sex that goes on today with the help and support of the mass media has had disastrous effects on relationships, families, and children (those born and never given the chance). No matter how many steps a couple takes to prevent a pregnancy, these preventions can and often do fail. That's where the importance of personal responsibility, which has been so horribly lost in today's culture, lies. If you don't want to deal with the consequences, don't deal with the action.
Next, there have been countless teenage mothers (and fathers) who have been able to either continue their education or postpone it with completion at a later time. With the help of family, friends, and the countless crisis, support, and help programs that exist today thanks to the Catholic Church and other charities, it is possible. Bet you didn't know this: Georgetown has a whole program set up to aid pregnant students. There is a whole townhouse set aside for student-parents, free baby sitting for these parents, free baby supplies, and a whole laundry list of support services set up. Other schools have similar programs. But of course that's not publicized by either liberal, ashamed-to-be-Catholic Georgetown or H*oyas for Choice, because that would mean taking responsibility for ones own actions, acting in the interests of family and children, etc.
Finally, I, as a guy, take some offense to the notion that all guys simply pack up and leave their children, or even worse that I somehow have some less of a right to have an opinion (well, a pro-life one at least) on unwanted pregnancies. "You'll never have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, how can you tell me that I have to keep my child?" is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Yes, you're right. I'll never be pregnancy. But that's not my decision. You can take your beef up with God on that one. But I certainly have the right to stand up for the voice-less, unprotected child growing inside a mother. If we're playing the gender-game, that child is just as likely to be male and therefore someone I can apparently rightly and appropriately stand up for as it is to be female. Or how about we put this ludicrous argument in the face of civil rights (as the crowd that generally claims that I have no place voicing my opinion on abortion is very concerned about the state of civil rights in America)? Are you telling me that whites have no business standing up for blacks simply because they have different skin colors? Whites shouldn't play a role in civil rights? Thats just how ridiculous that argument is. Just because someone isn't of the same "type" (whether it be gender, race, or anything else) doesn't mean that that person can't play a role or have an opinion on an event or decision regarding that group's rights or very existence.
2a) Since when did we determine the value of one's life by his or her economic viability. You're damn right having a kid is expensive. That's why you should act responsibly and avoid it. But, if you do end up with an unwanted pregnancy, it's crazy to think that someone's life should be determined by the fact that it will cost a lot of money. What about old people? As Professor Brown so often reminded us in microeconomics, old people cost a hell of a lot of money. Between never-ended surgeries, doctor's visits, Social Security, etc. billions of dollars are spent. Would it be easier to just kill all the old people? Of course not. We somehow think that we can apply this reasoning to unborn children just because they don't exactly look at us (depending on when you look) and because they can't speak for themselves like most of the elderly can (after all, older Americans are the most consistent, powerful voices at the voting booths on election day. If unborn children had that same right I bet they'd be pretty quick to cast a vote for a Human Life Amendment). If a child doesn't fit one's expenses, it should be put up for adoption, where a financially stable family can and will take care of him/her.
3a) Rape victims currently represent less than one percent of all abortions (the million+) performed in the U.S. each year. So, to begin with, we're not talking huge numbers (relatively). But more importantly, a life is a life, no matter the circumstances of its conception. As I said earlier, an unplanned pregnancy stinks. There's no other way to put it. In fact, it especially stinks in the case of a rape victim. But why should the unborn child of a rape victim be punished for the crimes of another person? That's not fair. Again, I guarantee you if you ask any children born to rape victims, who acted so courageously and strongly, whether or not they agree with the decision of his or her mother regarding the pregnancy, I bet you can guess the answer you'll get.
4a) This is the hardest one to answer, especially for someone who's not a biologist or medical-type person by any means. But first, I'll have to start out with the conscience. Personally, my conscience convinces me foremost that a first-trimester fetus is a human being covered by all our natural and constitutional rights and laws. But next, there is a wealth of scientific evidence that points to that fact as well. Personally, I was never just a sperm or just an egg. I was myself, genetically and scientifically, at the moment of conception. That's when my traits and features were determined to make the unique me. Think about it this way. If you continually ask yourself, "what was I yesterday, a year ago, two years ago..." and so on, you will ultimately get back to the point that you were the union of sperm and egg at conception. You can't get any earlier than that and you can't definitively get any later than that. From the minute a child is conceived, he or she contains the genetic make up and so many other traits that you and I share today. They are simply existing in an earlier, much smaller form. They exist in a form without a voice- a fact very inconvenient for that unborn child and potential abortion victim.
Next, if you don't want to define humanity at conception, then when do you define it? Do you say that we're only human at birth? Can anyone honestly call a fully developed unborn child still in the womb not a human? You're deceiving yourself if so. Is a second trimester fetus a child? Third? Only at viability? It's impossible to pull apart the characteristics at these points that could distinguish whether or not a certain fetus was "human enough" to be protected by law. The only sound, unmoving point where life can be defined is at conception.
Finally, the answer "I don't know if its human, you don't know if its human, so we can't draft a law" is a perfectly fine argument. However, it falls apart. I saw a renowned ethicist speak on the ethics of abortion last year and he had a really good answer for this argument, which I will try my best to put forth here. But, I definitely can't do it as well as he did. US law covers the "I don't knows" of life. We read newspaper headlines and watch the news every day regarding these situations. Someone who commits murder but "didn't know" gets charged with a lighter version of murder, or manslaughter of some sort. US law states over and over that "I didn't know" or "I didn't mean to" doesn't hold water here. Take the example of a hunter. If a hunter is hunting in the woods and sees some sort of movement off in the distance, he's tempted to shoot even though it's not a clear shot. It could be that deer he's been dreaming of. So, he shoots. What happens if it was actually a human? Well, he would be charged with involuntary manslaughter for acting so recklessly and treating human life so carelessly. The law states that he should not have pulled that trigger if he wasn't 100% positive that it wasn't a human. The same goes for abortion. If you want to argue that you aren't certain whether or not it is a child, the law states that the "I don't know" answer isn't good enough.
Here are four of the main arguments a few people put up in favor of abortion, followed by my answers of why they're wrong.
1) Just put yourself in her shoes. Your life would be ruined. 9 months of hell on your body. You'd have to quit school. You, as a guy, can leave, but the mother can't.
2) Think of the cost? How could you afford it?
3) What about rape victims?
4) To convince me that abortion is legal, you'd first have to convince people like me that a first-trimester fetus is a person.
1a) No one every said life is fair. It's not. And an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy wouldn't entirely ruin one's life. It would definitely be a painful, stressful, and costly nine months. But that nine months shouldn't determine whether or not the life of a human being is taken. In the case where a mother couldn't afford the child or simply didn't want it, the child should be put up for adoption. There are thousands of couples waiting for newborn children to adopt. I know one such couple continually advertises in the Georgetown Hoya newspaper and at mass on Sundays. I'm sure any adopted child, no matter his or her circumstances, would later in life agree that they're happy to be alive rather than having never been given the chance to live.
Before even discussing the problems with the pregnancy, it should be understood that when two people have sex, they should be implicitly agreeing that they are willing to take care of the potential consequences of that action, whether it be disease, distress, or pregnancy. The careless sex that goes on today with the help and support of the mass media has had disastrous effects on relationships, families, and children (those born and never given the chance). No matter how many steps a couple takes to prevent a pregnancy, these preventions can and often do fail. That's where the importance of personal responsibility, which has been so horribly lost in today's culture, lies. If you don't want to deal with the consequences, don't deal with the action.
Next, there have been countless teenage mothers (and fathers) who have been able to either continue their education or postpone it with completion at a later time. With the help of family, friends, and the countless crisis, support, and help programs that exist today thanks to the Catholic Church and other charities, it is possible. Bet you didn't know this: Georgetown has a whole program set up to aid pregnant students. There is a whole townhouse set aside for student-parents, free baby sitting for these parents, free baby supplies, and a whole laundry list of support services set up. Other schools have similar programs. But of course that's not publicized by either liberal, ashamed-to-be-Catholic Georgetown or H*oyas for Choice, because that would mean taking responsibility for ones own actions, acting in the interests of family and children, etc.
Finally, I, as a guy, take some offense to the notion that all guys simply pack up and leave their children, or even worse that I somehow have some less of a right to have an opinion (well, a pro-life one at least) on unwanted pregnancies. "You'll never have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, how can you tell me that I have to keep my child?" is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Yes, you're right. I'll never be pregnancy. But that's not my decision. You can take your beef up with God on that one. But I certainly have the right to stand up for the voice-less, unprotected child growing inside a mother. If we're playing the gender-game, that child is just as likely to be male and therefore someone I can apparently rightly and appropriately stand up for as it is to be female. Or how about we put this ludicrous argument in the face of civil rights (as the crowd that generally claims that I have no place voicing my opinion on abortion is very concerned about the state of civil rights in America)? Are you telling me that whites have no business standing up for blacks simply because they have different skin colors? Whites shouldn't play a role in civil rights? Thats just how ridiculous that argument is. Just because someone isn't of the same "type" (whether it be gender, race, or anything else) doesn't mean that that person can't play a role or have an opinion on an event or decision regarding that group's rights or very existence.
2a) Since when did we determine the value of one's life by his or her economic viability. You're damn right having a kid is expensive. That's why you should act responsibly and avoid it. But, if you do end up with an unwanted pregnancy, it's crazy to think that someone's life should be determined by the fact that it will cost a lot of money. What about old people? As Professor Brown so often reminded us in microeconomics, old people cost a hell of a lot of money. Between never-ended surgeries, doctor's visits, Social Security, etc. billions of dollars are spent. Would it be easier to just kill all the old people? Of course not. We somehow think that we can apply this reasoning to unborn children just because they don't exactly look at us (depending on when you look) and because they can't speak for themselves like most of the elderly can (after all, older Americans are the most consistent, powerful voices at the voting booths on election day. If unborn children had that same right I bet they'd be pretty quick to cast a vote for a Human Life Amendment). If a child doesn't fit one's expenses, it should be put up for adoption, where a financially stable family can and will take care of him/her.
3a) Rape victims currently represent less than one percent of all abortions (the million+) performed in the U.S. each year. So, to begin with, we're not talking huge numbers (relatively). But more importantly, a life is a life, no matter the circumstances of its conception. As I said earlier, an unplanned pregnancy stinks. There's no other way to put it. In fact, it especially stinks in the case of a rape victim. But why should the unborn child of a rape victim be punished for the crimes of another person? That's not fair. Again, I guarantee you if you ask any children born to rape victims, who acted so courageously and strongly, whether or not they agree with the decision of his or her mother regarding the pregnancy, I bet you can guess the answer you'll get.
4a) This is the hardest one to answer, especially for someone who's not a biologist or medical-type person by any means. But first, I'll have to start out with the conscience. Personally, my conscience convinces me foremost that a first-trimester fetus is a human being covered by all our natural and constitutional rights and laws. But next, there is a wealth of scientific evidence that points to that fact as well. Personally, I was never just a sperm or just an egg. I was myself, genetically and scientifically, at the moment of conception. That's when my traits and features were determined to make the unique me. Think about it this way. If you continually ask yourself, "what was I yesterday, a year ago, two years ago..." and so on, you will ultimately get back to the point that you were the union of sperm and egg at conception. You can't get any earlier than that and you can't definitively get any later than that. From the minute a child is conceived, he or she contains the genetic make up and so many other traits that you and I share today. They are simply existing in an earlier, much smaller form. They exist in a form without a voice- a fact very inconvenient for that unborn child and potential abortion victim.
Next, if you don't want to define humanity at conception, then when do you define it? Do you say that we're only human at birth? Can anyone honestly call a fully developed unborn child still in the womb not a human? You're deceiving yourself if so. Is a second trimester fetus a child? Third? Only at viability? It's impossible to pull apart the characteristics at these points that could distinguish whether or not a certain fetus was "human enough" to be protected by law. The only sound, unmoving point where life can be defined is at conception.
Finally, the answer "I don't know if its human, you don't know if its human, so we can't draft a law" is a perfectly fine argument. However, it falls apart. I saw a renowned ethicist speak on the ethics of abortion last year and he had a really good answer for this argument, which I will try my best to put forth here. But, I definitely can't do it as well as he did. US law covers the "I don't knows" of life. We read newspaper headlines and watch the news every day regarding these situations. Someone who commits murder but "didn't know" gets charged with a lighter version of murder, or manslaughter of some sort. US law states over and over that "I didn't know" or "I didn't mean to" doesn't hold water here. Take the example of a hunter. If a hunter is hunting in the woods and sees some sort of movement off in the distance, he's tempted to shoot even though it's not a clear shot. It could be that deer he's been dreaming of. So, he shoots. What happens if it was actually a human? Well, he would be charged with involuntary manslaughter for acting so recklessly and treating human life so carelessly. The law states that he should not have pulled that trigger if he wasn't 100% positive that it wasn't a human. The same goes for abortion. If you want to argue that you aren't certain whether or not it is a child, the law states that the "I don't know" answer isn't good enough.
|