|
Abortion is another one of
those endless debates based around definition. When, precisely, does a
figure stop becoming a clump of cells and star becoming a human? Well,
never. We are still clumps of cells, functioning together to carry out
various tasks and duties. So there is no true scientific definition, nor
can there be, of when a person becomes a person. All we have are opinions.
Some believe that fetuses
should not be aborted if they can feel the pain of abortion. Fetuses are
sensitive to touch at eight weeks- indicating that they can feel pain at
this point. By this argument, any baby under two months old can be
aborted, and those over that time cannot. After all, it is a horrible
thing to make a person feel pain… isn’t it? Once born, a baby will never
feel pain. No one ever gets hurt in this world, right? Think on it. By
delivering this child from the possibility of abortion, we aren’t actually
saving it from anything. It would have died eventually, likely feeling
pain equal to that it could have felt earlier. I want to be clear on this;
I am not saying that we should be able to abort a child after two months
or that we should never be able to use abortion, but I am saying that the
argument for saving the child from pain is inherently incorrect. Suppose
we shot the fetus with a drug to make it not feel pain before the
abortion? Would that make it right? Is shooting any human, regardless of
age with a painkiller and then killing them right? With this argument,
murderers could be considered innocent as long as the victim has been
given a pain resistant drug first. This simply makes no sense, making pain
a bad indicator for an ethical time to abort a child.
Others consider conception
the time when an egg becomes a child. This follows the idea of the
pro-life stance, that no baby should ever be aborted under any
circumstances. Any life is sacred, regardless of the age of the organism.
This somehow contradicts with the high amount of animal slaughtering there
is in this country. 97.2% of America is non-vegetarian, yet the majority
of America believes in all life being sacred. So I suppose we now have to
assume that by life, the American public means human life. So, following
this ideal, we must assume that it is much more important to save a
grouping of cells which is not actually considered alive, than it is to
save a living, breathing, thinking animal who can feel pain. I suppose
this is conceivable, except for the fact the egg, at the time of
conception, isn’t actually alive. To be alive, an organism must be made of
cells, have a metabolism, adapt to the environment, grow and develop,
respond to stimuli, and reproduce. The bunch of cells at the beginning of
conception has arguably four or five of these major six characteristics,
the same amount as fire. A baby at conception is just as biologically
alive as fire, meaning it is not. Thus, the idea that “all human life is
sacred” doesn’t apply, at least not at conception.
A common opinion is that if
the woman was raped, it is ethical to remove the child. But the baby
itself has done no wrong, and was not responsible for the rape. By
aborting the baby, the rapist is not being punished. It is true that it is
unfair for the women to have been raped, but the rape was the fault of the
rapist. Thus, the rapist should pay for his actions. The baby, although an
unfairly placed responsibility on the mother, should not pay for the
action. In any case of law, the victim can only accuse the one who
victimized her. The baby is itself a sort of innocent bystander. Unwanted
perhaps, but having done no wrong. Why should anyone kill an innocent
person while placing the blame on another? The rape was not the fault of
the baby, nor should the punishment be carried out as such. Of course,
this argument is made assuming the unborn baby is a person. If we take the
direction that the unborn baby is not a person, then rape has nothing to
do with it; the non-human grouping of cells should be able to be removed
regardless of the reason for its conception.
Some believe that a baby
should only be aborted if the mother would have died giving birth.
Similarly, this argument assumes that the unborn baby is actually an
alive, living child in the first place, or the fetus could be aborted
regardless anything else. Taking this argument, we are sacrificing the
life of a baby for the life of a mother. What makes the mother’s life more
important than the unborn child’s? After all, it will probably be shorter.
What gives us the right to label one life more important then the other?
If we let the abortion happen, we are arguably committing murder to save
another (The majority of Americans believe that abortion is murder. If we
assume that the unborn baby is alive, which I’ve shown above that we must
for the sake of argument, then it is almost certainly murder). If we don’t
abort and the mother dies, no murder took place.
Conclusively, I have no answers. I do not know where I stand on abortion.
I’ve mostly put down arguments, some Democrat and others Republican, some
pro-life and others pro-choice. Doubtlessly my own arguments can be put
down as well, though to what extent and how effectively is unknown. It is
surprising to me, that the overwhelming majority of Americans have a
definite stance on abortion. I’ve seen none or few arguments making
complete sense. But nothing else can be expected, when debating over a
definition. |
