Hey guys,
I’m in a politics class and we have an online class discussion board and I want to make a reasonable argument for Pro-Life without sounding that it’s just because of my religious reasons I believe this. Is there a way to defend Pro-Life issues without bringing up the church? If there is can I have some examples? One thing to understand is that most of my classmates believe the U.S. ruling on what is a fetus and what is a baby and at contraception to them it’s not. I thought about bringing up the bad side effects of abortions but I’m afraid they will say that is becoming easier as technology grows so I need a stronger argument then that, this class is an honors class so a lot of them are going to think quite hard on this.
Thanks guys, appreciate your help.
Taylor
Trying to support a Pro-Life stand without mentioning the Catholic Church is a valid exercise as not everybody believes the Catholic Church to have any authority on this issue.
A little while ago I heard an argument that was directed as a such and I will try to repeat it as accurately as possible, though I forgot where I got it from:
The problem is defining whether or not we are talking about a baby or not and whether this life that is in the womb has the same value as a baby does.
For that it is necessary to define the difference between a newborn and a baby in the womb.
First difference: Development
A growing baby in the womb is not as far developed as a baby that has been born and it is usually not able to live on its own.
The problem that this assessment poses however is far greater than the mere difference between an embryo and a baby. If the worth of a person is defined by his or her development this would mean that I as a person am of greater worth than a toddler as I am full grown while a toddler is not. I am further developed in my mental capability, in my knowledge and in my strength. All of that however does not give me a higher worth than a toddler.
As the argument goes further let me explain this too: An embryo is not capable of living on its own. This however is a mere straw man argument. A newborn is incapable to live on its own and a toddler is just as well. During our development we do need the care of others lest we die. Some teenagers are not capable to live on their own. Does that validate killing a newborn? No it doesn’t. Does that make a toddler’s life less precious? No it doesn’t. The fact that an embryo needs the environment of his or her mother to sustain themselves does not make them less worthy of living.
Second difference: Location
A baby born 3 months early is outside the womb and killing the child would be illegal. A baby at the same gestational age who is still inside the womb however can be aborted. This would mean that the location of the child is important in telling whether this life is worthy of protection under the law. The question here is however the following: Does a different location make a person worth less and another make the person worth more?
If I go through my door and move from the living room onto the front porch, has my value changed? I shouldn’t think so.
Why then is the value of a child changed by the mere fact that he or she has been born and in effect only changed locations from inside the womb to outside of the womb. That doesn’t make any sense at all. This is however how we assess the situation commonly.
Third difference: The freedom of the mother
When a child is born a mother’s life will be changed dramatically and everybody knows that. It is a normal thing to assume that her life will not be the same after the birth. Does that make the child less valuable and does that validate killing the child? I don’t think so. In the case of somebody’s life being radically changed the question is whether we end a life to keep the comfort of another life and that is morally incomprehensible. If we were to follow this directive and follow it consequently hardly anyone of us would have made it through our teenage years. When a child is born the mother takes care of him or her. Then her life is dramatically changed for the first time in her child’s life by the fact that she will have to put up with a toddler. Later her child will undergo even more dramatic changes with immense mood swings, lusts and rebellion against the parents. If the child’s impact upon the life of the mother because of his or her birth is a valid reason for killing the child, then why aren’t the toddler years considered as such or puberty? If this was a valid argument, then why is it illegal to kill the child right after birth?
What would and should we choose? Keeping the status quo for a woman by killing an innocent child or allowing this innocent life to grow and mature while helping the mother cope with the situation in any possible manner?
There is no valid reason to assume that there is a difference between an unborn and a born child. Development and location do not change the worth of this young life and it is incomprehensible to assume that the comfort of a woman supersedes the right to life of an innocent baby.
