Philosophical and Scientific Reasons for the Abolishment of Abortion
By: andrew travis pantazi
September 6, 2007
"Many people are very, very concerned with children in
Mother Teresa even says that abortion is an important neglected issue, especially in
Remember that from the beginning to the end of life, we have the same DNA. While you are still a fetus, your DNA is the same as it is when you die. Therefore, you cannot be a part of your mother’s body. You are a second DNA within her. Your genetics are separate from hers; although there may be similarities, you have a distinct DNA. “The question of when life begins can be settled by science—and it has been. Biologically, the human zygote is a separate organism from the time of conception—genetically unique and distinct from its parents, developing according to its own genetic ‘blueprint.’” Chuck Colson, Breakpoint. Science can tell us plainly that though the baby is attached to the mother it is still a separate being. Would you say that because conjoined twins are connected that means they are not separate beings? This is also similar to saying that conjoined twins are actually one person, even though they have separate DNA they are connected and therefore one of the twins could choose to kill the other with no consequences since they have the same body. “Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her. To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and -- with the case of a male conceptus -- a penis and two testicles… Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one's right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others.” (Source: Beckwith, Francis J. “Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights, Part Two: Arguments from Pity, Tolerance, and Ad Hominem.” Christian Research Journal (1991): 27-32.) Scot Klusendorf, pro-life advocate, said this about the abortion debate, “Let me be clear. I am vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own school, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. These are among the many choices that I fully support for the women of our country. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.
“Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.” Therefore, if the unborn are not human then the woman should be allowed to have an abortion, so there is only one question to focus on, “ARE THE UNBORN HUMAN?”
SCIENCE: Even former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher did not see how anyone could conclude that a fetus is a distinct and separate human being from their mother. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," (A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: the Story of Human Procreation (New York: Viking Press, 1933) p. 3). Scott Klusendorf, pro-life advocate, said in an essay, “Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine insists that we gain no real knowledge from these scientific facts. Bailey argues that embryonic human beings are biologically human only in the sense that every cell in the body carries the full genetic code, meaning that each of our somatic (bodily) cells has as much potential for development as any human embryo.(Ronald Bailey, “Are Stem Cells Babies? Reason, July 11, 2001.) Put simply, Bailey would have us believe that there is no difference in kind between a human embryo and each of our cells. This is bad biology. Bailey is making the rather elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: An individual cell’s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity. It makes no sense to say that you were once a sperm or somatic cell. However, the facts of science make clear that you were once a human embryo. “Somatic cells are not, and embryonic human beings are, distinct, self-integrating organisms capable of directing their own maturation as members of the human species.” (Robert George and Patrick Lee, “Reason, Science, and Stem Cells,” National Review On-Line, 7-20-01.)
PHILOSOPHY: Pro-choice advocates generally use four major arguments. Those are SLED or Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. However, most of these people have unfortunately never seen that all of these arguments actually point to the unborn having a right to life. Size is an irrelevant argument. The fact that an unborn child is of an extremely small size ranging from a zygote to the newborn means nothing about whether they are living humans. That size range is much smaller than the size range of someone who is plagued with dwarfism compared to someone with gigantism. Both are equally human regardless of size. While the Level of development of the unborn is less developed than a toddler, this is still not a valid argument. After all a little six-year-old child is not as developed as a middle-aged man is. Does this mean we have a right to end the life of a six-year-old because they are not as developed and therefore not human? Of course not! The child is equally human to a middle-aged man. It is true that the unborn baby does not have the capacity for self-awareness, however neither do newborn babies and most people would agree that newborn babies should have the right to live. However, there are some bio-ethicists such as
As a Christian, I must believe that God created all humans equally. If the unborn are humans, then they are equal to a human of any age and any development. Genesis 1:26-28 says, "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”" (Genesis 1:26-28, NASB95) Mankind was made in God’s image and just as it was vitally important for William Wilberforce, a strong Christian who wrote theological works and was the main frontrunner for the abolition of slavery, to abolish slavery in
