"Abortion is pro-life" - how to respond to this?

[Illini For Life]

Here's a web site from a group that supports abortion - how do we answer to the finer details of the reasoning they put forward in this 'frequently asked questions' page?

abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

[Sarah]

The first thing that leaps to mind reading this site is the way it links capitalism (whatever its merits, not a system known for protecting or empowering the weak) with abortion. And the copyright in fact belongs to Capitalism Magazine. I would be interested to know how much legal abortion is worth as an industry per year. Certainly, it has made many individual abortionists wealthy. Clinics probably benefit from the fact that most of the abortions they provide are paid for in cash or private insurance rather than the notoriously slow and stingy Medicaid reimbursements. And of course, the rallying cry that we need to keep abortion safe and legal is one of the most effective ways that organizations like NOW and NARAL raise money. I figure abortion is probably a billion dollar industry and capitalism as a system will want to protect such an industry regardless of the damage it does to women (especially poor ones) and to children and society as a whole.

As for an embryo/fetus being simply a "potential" human being--clearly it IS a human being. It is in a developmental stage that all human beings pass through as they grow. That doesn't necessarily mean that it should have the same rights as a fully developed human--in our society legal rights develop from before birth to well into adulthood--but of course it's human. It's like saying a newborn isn't as human as an 18-year old because it can't vote.

The FAQs admit that there is an argument for not aborting *viable* fetuses as they can potentially live independently outside the woman's body, but then in abortionisprolife.com/statistics.htm the site defends late-term abortions for reasons as disparate as "medical complications" to "time to raise money to pay for the abortion." It also defends aborting "an abnormal fetus," even if the abnormality was not diagnosed until late in the pregnancy, and presumably, even if that abnormality is not fatal--seems tantamount to saying that physically and mentally disabled people simply deserve fewer rights that everyone else.

Interestingly, the site doesn't touch on the issue of forced abortions at all--surely, by the site's rationale, at least as great a violation of a woman's rights as not letting her have an abortion. But women all over the world and in the USA are regularly compelled for financial, social and sometimes even legal reasons to have abortions whether they want one or not. I wonder how folks at Capitalism Magazine would feel about, say, government subsidized daycare or nationalized health insurance. I'm guessing they'd be appalled.

I don't think this site is about women's rights or human rights. I think it is about protecting a lucrative industry while simultaneously reducing the number of poor and disabled people who might prove "burdensome" to our capitalist society.

[cmadison]

I would like to address the subject of capitalism that Sarah brought up. Abortion may be a billion dollar industry but you have to consider the 43-46 million people lost to abortion since Roe v. Wade who could be living, working, buying, and consuming in our capitalist society. The industry of abortion cannot possibly compare to the contributions that 43 million people will make in a lifetime. Capitalism as a system should not wish to protect an industry that systematically eliminates a large group of potential consumers.

[vlad]

There are several claims to combat in that particular article.

First, and most importantly one must (and this is the whole foundation of Pro-Life, in my opinion) argue that the embryo and the fetus is a Human being. No one denies the right that humans have a right to live. What pro-abortion groups argue is that the fetus/embryo are not fully human or human at all and as such they do not share our rights.

Second, the claim that no one has the right to live off of another must be challenged. Their claim is a perversion of individualism. The articles claims that no one has any right to anything that they themselves can not procure, and when some one is incapable of fending for themselves they become non humans. This is dangerous foundation for morality, as society, and modern society especially, is a network of mutual reliance between people. Thus in fact none of us can do or obtain for ourselves anything really with out getting it from some one else. Our food is grown by some one else, our clothes are made by some one else, our security is protected by some one else, our money is protected by some one else, etc... Under their guidelines for rights, a 1 year old child is also not human. I mean how is a small baby any less helpless than a comatose man?

Lastly it is important to in my opinion not blame capitalism for this argument, and abhorrent line of thought. Capitalism is merely an economic system, that must be framed by a larger philosophical system of human to human interaction and rights. Capitalism is only as good and benevolent as the philosophy that guides the society. Ultimetly Capitalism is about personal choice and responsibility. This is a good thing, in the end because we can only be really held accountable only for ourselves. But, if we have no power over ourselves than how can we be held responsible? The fact that they made a pro-abortion argument justified in some super individualist capitalistic frame work, does not mean one could not make some sort of socialistic mass utilitarian argument for it. Either way both would miss the truth by a good mile.

[John T]

Just to make sure that my fellow pro-lifers have all the resources available, I'd like to direct you to the message boards on prolifeamerica.com. I'm sure someone could help you to put forth a thorough examination of your question.

[Dean Covalt]

There are several misconceptions on this site.

First, it gets the essential political question wrong. The essential question is not "does the fetus have the right to be in the body of the woman against the will of the woman" but rather "What is the fetus or embryo?" If it is a human being (on which our fundamental inalienable rights are based as their quote from Ayn Rand indicates) then it deserves all the same fundamental inalienable rights as born human beings. Moreover, this idea of being against the woman's will smacks of an enlightenment understanding of free will. Your present actions limit future free will. For instance, if I dig a hole ten-feet deep and then, using my free will, decide to jump in, I've limited my free will for future decisions, such as deciding to get out of the hole. Furthermore, there seems to be an implicit argument that since the woman's body is her own then she can do what she wants with it. However, this seems to beg the question since we do not allow a woman to do whatever she wants with her body when it involves another human being, especially when that human being's life is involved. This particular line of reasoning with respect to making a distinction between rights and permissions smacks of the same kind of arguments concerning justice (rather than the ontology of the fetus) in the famous violinist argument by Judith Jarvis Thompson. For a synopsis and critique of this argument go to www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689

As far as rights go, if the embryo/fetus is a living human being then it does have the right to receive the proper environment and the proper nutrition it needs to survive at it's particular level of development. Also, the mother has an obligation to care for the child. This is in the law. Again, if the embryo/fetus in a living human being, it does indeed have the same fundamental right to life as any other human being has on the simple fact that our rights are based on our natures.

The article goes on to talk about abortion being an inalienable right. In doing so it refers to the fetus as a "parasite". It is interesting that such language is used since similar language has been used in the past to dehumanize other people groups in order to justify genocide. This is exactly how abortion is being justified here. It's a parasite so it has no right to be in the woman's body. Where's the argument for this? Again, look at the critique of the violinist argument given above.

They then briefly bring up rape. They compare someone dictating the use of her body through rape with dictating how she uses her same body by making her stay pregnant. Rape is horrible but one needs to understand that the rapist is the one who is making the woman become a mother (if she gets pregnant) not pro-lifers. The rapist is guilt of not only assault on the woman but also of forcing her to be a mother when she didn't choose to be and, if she does the right thing, of carrying the baby to term for 9 months and, if she decides to keep the baby, of supporting the child for 18 years. The rapist did all this. However, this argument implicitly begs the question again since it is never permissible to punish an innocent child for the sins of its father. So, why would it be acceptable in this situation (though horrible it is) to punish the innocent child unless, of course, we are assuming it isn't a child to begin with. But that's the question that needs to be addressed.

They continue in the "Is abortion murder?" section by explicitly saying that the fetus is not a human being but a potential human being. Well, for something to be a potential X it must be an actual Y. ie. If it is not a human being, then what is it? Is it a dog, cat, fish, bird? Here's where science clarifies things. By the law of biogenesis, we know that living things come from only living things and that living things reproduce after their own kind. That is, living dogs only produce other living dogs. Embryology textbooks will tell you that a new living human being begins at conception. Further, they argue that humans beings have rights because they survive through the use of reason. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that this same argument could be used to justify infanticide and the killing of the mentally disabled. I guess we should all join Peter Singer.

They then use the fallacious argument that an acorn is not an oak tree and so an embryo is not a human being. This is only a half truth. It is true that an embryo is not like a human being at a different stage of development but we can also say that an infant is not like a toddler and a toddler is not like an adolescent and an adolescent is not like an adult but they are all human beings. The only difference among them is their stage of development. In the same way, embryo and fetus are human beings at an earlier stage of development and we can say that an acorn is not an oak tree in the same way that a sapling is not an oak tree either. However, they are all oaks but at different stages of development.

The rest of the article is more of the same. All the points about the fetus being "independent/dependent," "being life," etc. all either beg the question or are simply flat out mistaken with regard to the science. For instance, on the question of whether it is living they compare the embryo to a cell (like the sperm cell) and thus conclude that since being alive doesn't confer rights to the sperm cell then neither does it confer rights to the embryo. However, it isn't the simple fact that it is alive. It is the fact that it is an individual human being with it's own genetic make up who is growing, developing and interacting with it's environment and is on it's own developmental trajectory. This all indicates that the embryo/fetus is a separate living organism unlike other cells of the body. And as mentioned above, according to the law of biogenesis, the only conclusion that we can come to is that this individual living organism is a human being. Once that is established, all the talk about rights must be done with two individuals in mind rather than only one.

I hope this helps

Dean Covalt, M.S., M.Ed

For futher reading on these issues:

"Politically Correct Death", by Francis Beckwith
Stand to Reason website www.str.org