CalvinDude Masthead
I Know it's OctoberJust a Reminder

Purple Out Today

Posted: September 28, 2015 (10:00 PM) by CalvinDude / Peter Pike
Planned Parenthood has decided to make today a Pink Out Day where people are supposed to wear pink to show support for an institution that murders unborn human beings for profit. That's why it's time for some purple, to show support for the unborn.

It is perhaps worthwhile to go over once more why abortion is immoral. Of course, if you've read some of my posts on it in the past then this will not be breaking new ground. But a refresher every once in a while is important.

First, let us get the boundaries of our inquiry set up. We will start with a moral claim that is not dubious in the least, which nearly everyone accepts as true. The moral claim is this:

1. Murder is the unjustified taking of human life.
2. Murder is immoral.

(2) naturally follows from (1) given that the word "unjustified" is specifically in there. It is important to have that word since nearly everyone agrees that there are times where it is justifiable to take a human life (such as in self-defense, when there is no other way to stop an attacker). So, not all taking of human life is unjustified; but all unjustified taking of human life is murder, and the moral claim is that murder is wrong.

Again, this part should be fairly trivial. Now we move to the next part of the argument:

3. The goal of abortion is to end an unborn fetus's life.
4. Abortion is the unjustified taking of human life.
5. Therefore, abortion is murder.
6. Therefore, abortion is immoral.

(5) is the necessary conclusion of (1) and (4). (6) is the necessary conclusion of (5) and (2). Thus, if one accepts the truth of (4) then one necessarily must agree that abortion is immoral because abortion is murder.

Therefore, the point of contention is going to be step (4): Abortion is the unjustified taking of human life. If this point is proven valid, everything else in the argument is valid.

So, let us examine (4) in detail. There are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for (4) to be true: A) Abortion must take a human life; B) abortion must be unjustified.

To demonstrate the first part (abortion must take a human life) is a simple, straightforward scientific question. We can simply ask: "What is aborted during the abortion procedure?" And quite clearly, what is aborted is a human being in the fetal stage of development.

Many proponents of abortion claim that a fetus is not a human being, of course. But it is trivial to demonstrate that this is wrong. Fetuses are not interchangeable. That is, I cannot take a cat fetus, insert it into a human mother, and produce a human being. Because fetuses are not interchangeable like that, then that means that each individual fetus is particular to the species that has developed the fetus. Thus, a human fetus is distinct from any other fetus out there. Thus, quite clearly, we have established that the fetuses we are dealing with are those that have the being of humanity: they are human beings.

Secondly, abortion most definitely does kill the human fetus. Before abortion takes place, the human fetus shows all the criteria for life. There are seven criteria used for life: 1) living things are made of cells; 2) they have different levels of development; 3) they use energy; 4) they respond to their environment; 5) they grow; 6) they reproduce; 7) they adapt to their environment. Again, each of these things are satisfied by the unborn human being before abortion takes place. After abortion, however, a fetus no longer uses energy, responds to the environment, grows, reproduces, or adapts--thus, abortion kills the fetus.

So we have satisfied the fact that abortion does take a human life. The only remaining question is this: is abortion justified?

To answer that question, we must answer it the same way we would answer it for any other human being. That is, whether or not it is justifiable to end the life of a human being depends on human rights, which are rights that every human being has. So, let us consider the reasons given by abortionists for ending the human life and see if they are justifiable.

I. The fetus is so small you can't even see it. But this ultimately means that the size of a person determines their human rights, such that the larger the person, the more rights they have. More to the point, there is no non-arbitrary cut-off point where you can say, "A human must be this size before he or she has rights."

II. The fetus is only a few cells. But everyone is "only a few cells." Furthermore, this argues that it is the level of development that determines human rights, such that an adult would be more of a human than a child. Furthermore, this once again suffers from the fact that there is no non-arbitrary cut-off point where you can say, "A human must be this level of development before he or she has rights."

III. The fetus is located inside the mother. But that means that the location of an individual is what determines their human rights. It seems down right ludicrous to say that moving a human being two or three inches is the difference between justifiably killing them and unjustifiably killing them. Furthermore, as is the pattern, there is no non-arbitrary cut-off point where you can say, "A human must be at this particular location before he or she has rights."

IV. The fetus isn't a person. First of all, human rights are based on the fact of being human, not on "personhood". Secondly, what defines whether a human is a person or not? Thirdly, in the broken record vein, what is the non-arbitrary cut-off point where you can say, "This aspect of personhood must be met before a human being has rights"?

V. The fetus isn't conscious. First, we don't know that. Simply because we do not remember our time in the womb does not mean we were not conscious then. In fact, probably 99% of our life will be time that we've forgotten. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: what did you have for lunch on April 17, 2002. In fact, what did you do at all that day? Don't remember? Then clearly you weren't conscious back then... Secondly, supposing that consciousness entails something else, there is no non-arbitrary cut-off point where you can say, "A human must be this conscious before he or she has rights."

VI. The fetus isn't wanted. Even if we grant this as true (which it is not, since I know for a fact there is at least one person who would want the unborn baby), not wanting someone is not grounds for murdering that person. Indeed, it is probably a safe bet to say everyone who is murdered is "not wanted" by the murderer. Furthermore, there are other options than murdering an unwanted baby, which do not entail the mother being forced to keep the unwanted child (i.e., adoption). And finally: there is no non-arbitrary cut-off point where you can say, "A human must be wanted by this number of people, or by this specific person, before he or she has rights."

VII. A child conceived in rape or due to incest will be a constant, painful reminder. I do not deny that this is the case, but someone being a painful reminder of trauma is not sufficient grounds to murder that person. And, as stated earlier, there are other means by which you can create distance (such as giving the child up for adoption) that do not require taking the life of the innocent child. Furthermore, this reason is an extremely small percentage of reasons given for abortion. Finally, as has become routine, there is no non-arbitrary cut-off point where you can say, "A human's existence must cause less than this amount of pain to the mother before he or she has rights."

Thus, we can see that there is no good reason that can be used to justify the taking of an unborn human being's life thus far. In fact, I can only think of one time when it is valid: when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. At that point, the goal of the abortion is not to end the life of the baby, but to save the lives that can be saved (this is because most of the time, when the mother's life is threatened, then it will result in both mother and child perishing; terminating the pregnancy under those circumstances saves a life). Because the goal of that process is not the death of the unborn, I would argue that it is not actually abortion, which is why step (3) in the argument is phrased the way it is.

Now given all the above, it seem very plain to me that abortion does take the life of an innocent human being, and that it is unjustified in all circumstances other than to save the life of the mother. Given that saving the life of the mother is a special circumstance, we can even distinguish between that and abortion on demand, such as what Planned Parenthood provides. Therefore, the logic of the position stands:

1. Murder is the unjustified taking of human life.
2. Murder is immoral.
3. The goal of abortion is to end an unborn fetus's life.
4. Abortion is the unjustified taking of human life.
5. Therefore, abortion is murder.
6. Therefore, abortion is immoral.



Edit: Corrected some small typos on 9/30.

Comments 0Rating: 0

There are no comments on this post.
I Know it's OctoberJust a Reminder
Content on the site is copyright 1996 - 2017 by Peter Pike. All Rights Reserved. This page works best with HTML 5 browsers.
By accessing this site, you acknowledge your agreement with our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.