Equal Rights for Unborn People
It really cannot be argued anymore that a fetus is not a separate organism. From the moment that a sperm and ovum unite and become a single cell a new life is created. Moreover, this new life, the product of two human parents and possessing a complete set of human genes and DNA, is certainly human. This is a simple fact and is clearly supported by modern science. This is reflected even in the positions of those who support women’s “right” to end that life, which have steadily been shifting rhetorically from an insistence that such a cell did not constitute a life to a more relativistic argument regarding when life becomes “meaningful”.
When does a human life become meaningful? From the moment of conception a human being is a unique individual with limitless potential. There are only five conditions that differentiate an unborn person from those who are universally recognized as people: awareness, development, dependency, size and location. Each of these conditions are encountered after birth yet none of them provides sufficient reason to kill anyone.
An embryo’s level of awareness is lower than that of a fully conscious adult. However, when a person sleeps, they suspend their awareness and cognizant thought. Does this make it morally acceptable to murder a sleeping person? Absolutely not! In the same way it is ridiculous to assert that an embryo be denied protection based on the fact it has little knowledge and comprehension of his or her surroundings.
If the news tomorrow revealed a killer who slaughtered eight year olds the public would be horrified and condemn the actions of such a monster. Most eight year olds do not have fully matured bodies; their brains are still growing, their muscles are small and their reproductive organs are nonfunctional. Why then should it be acceptable to end the life of a person who is somewhat less developed?
There is no argument that embryos are absolutely dependent on their mother before birth. However, after birth this does not usually change much. Small children are dependent on caretakers for many years after birth. Even after people become adults they usually become dependent on others several times before they die. Whatever the cause, whether it arises from sickness, injury, childhood or old age it doesn’t give a right for people to take advantage of the dependence to end their life. This is equally true for unborn babies.
Size is obviously not a factor in determining how meaningful a life is. It wouldn’t be fair to say that Jane Fonda is a worse person than Ted Kennedy just because of size would it? To judge a baby based on its size is equally foolish.
The final factor and the one that seems to create the largest problem is location. For most people location doesn’t contribute or subtract from their personhood in anyone’s minds. But because of the unique inconveniencing nature of a baby’s placement some people believe that women have the right to kill the fetus to avoid this difficulty. This is akin to thinking that it is tolerable to kill drivers that get in your way or blow away the local tax collector who wants to take your money.
Looking back at the mess above I’ve decided my platform needs a lot of work. I'll have to revise this later. Maybe I should look for an Imperial Minister of Written Communication.
When does a human life become meaningful? From the moment of conception a human being is a unique individual with limitless potential. There are only five conditions that differentiate an unborn person from those who are universally recognized as people: awareness, development, dependency, size and location. Each of these conditions are encountered after birth yet none of them provides sufficient reason to kill anyone.
An embryo’s level of awareness is lower than that of a fully conscious adult. However, when a person sleeps, they suspend their awareness and cognizant thought. Does this make it morally acceptable to murder a sleeping person? Absolutely not! In the same way it is ridiculous to assert that an embryo be denied protection based on the fact it has little knowledge and comprehension of his or her surroundings.
If the news tomorrow revealed a killer who slaughtered eight year olds the public would be horrified and condemn the actions of such a monster. Most eight year olds do not have fully matured bodies; their brains are still growing, their muscles are small and their reproductive organs are nonfunctional. Why then should it be acceptable to end the life of a person who is somewhat less developed?
There is no argument that embryos are absolutely dependent on their mother before birth. However, after birth this does not usually change much. Small children are dependent on caretakers for many years after birth. Even after people become adults they usually become dependent on others several times before they die. Whatever the cause, whether it arises from sickness, injury, childhood or old age it doesn’t give a right for people to take advantage of the dependence to end their life. This is equally true for unborn babies.
Size is obviously not a factor in determining how meaningful a life is. It wouldn’t be fair to say that Jane Fonda is a worse person than Ted Kennedy just because of size would it? To judge a baby based on its size is equally foolish.
The final factor and the one that seems to create the largest problem is location. For most people location doesn’t contribute or subtract from their personhood in anyone’s minds. But because of the unique inconveniencing nature of a baby’s placement some people believe that women have the right to kill the fetus to avoid this difficulty. This is akin to thinking that it is tolerable to kill drivers that get in your way or blow away the local tax collector who wants to take your money.
Looking back at the mess above I’ve decided my platform needs a lot of work. I'll have to revise this later. Maybe I should look for an Imperial Minister of Written Communication.
5 Comments:
I totally agree. If the parents of the child "and yes it is a child" didn't want children they shouldn't have commited the act that caused him/her to be formed.
You may complain about it but I think that your article was nicely written.
"This is reflected even in the positions of those who support women’s “right” to end that life,"
What I fail to comprehend is why it's always the woman's right alone to keep or end that life. While she is the carrier and does have to go through with the final process, it does take two for this development and usually the initial process is by mutual consent. If it was otherwise I could see why they assign said right as it is. Oh well... my thinking must be biased and slanted to much to see the reason (a good one mind you) why this is. This whole issue is just sad.
As for applying for staff positions I can offer my services as an Official Imperial Reader. I am also qualified to fill in other positions such as Overlord Figurehead, Minister of Justice, etc. I shall be sending you my credentials later.
I wrote an eight page paper on this topic once. That was interesting. Crazily enough, it was really hard to find resources for the paper! Anyway, I thought your views were well written.
A babies forming body is completely cocooned and separate within the mother. Blood type is often different which shows that the baby is a complete and separate human being. So obviously, "my body, my choice" doesn't work any more as a slogan.
I do find it interesting that the pro-choice people are shifting their argument to "when life becomes meaningful". I think it is sad that people will probably consider it and be won over by such a ridiculous argumument!
One argument made for abortion is that the baby isn't viable therefore cannot live on its own. The point when a baby becomes viable is usually the cutoff most states have for the latest someone can have an abortion. This month's popular science was talking about an artificial womb to allow a fetus to develop out of a mother's own womb. There are quite a few good uses for this, but if perfected it would make the age of viability be the instant of conception.
And Emily, I'd bet that most couples aren't having sex with the sole intent of procreation; that just happens to be an uncommon yet predictable side effect of said act.
Post a Comment
<< Home