Several reasons are given when someone is promoting abortion: It doesn't look like a baby. It's a blob of tissue. It will be born in poverty. It's disabled. It's unwanted. It will be a crack baby. It will interfere with school or work. The mother is too young. It's in the mother's body, so she can do what she wants with it.
When the issue is being discussed with an abortion proponent, a simple rebuttal can be made for most of their arguments. They should be asked if they are for the killing of a baby outside the womb because it's born in poverty, unwanted, addicted to drugs, etc. Of course, they will say that is different, because the baby is already born. Obviously, they just answered the main pro-life argument for not aborting the baby.
The only difference in those two examples is the location of the baby, and that's it. A born person doesn't change its nature just by going from one room to another. Astronauts can be thousands of miles in space, but they are still the same people that they were on earth. An unborn doesn't all of a sudden becomes some other entity once it is delivered. Then how is it that an unborn baby is perceived to be so different from a born baby that it should be allowed to be killed. The pro-lifer, of course, believes that location of this person is a non-factor, except for rare health concerns. An example of this is an ectopic pregnancy, where the location of the unborn would eventually kill the mother and itself if left alone.
The argument often comes up that it's attached to the mother so she can do what she wants - the "It's my body argument." The location explanation can be used for that, too. The unborn is attached to the mother for nutrition and growth because it is where it's supposed to be at that time. The infant who is in a different location still is very dependant on its mother or another adult to give it the nutrition it needs to survive. Of course, at that point in time it doesn't need the umbilical cord, but just receives the nutrition in a different fashion. Abortion proponents basically say that the unborn should be killed just because it gets its nutrition at a different location and manner than an infant.
The abortion advocate will usually try to distract from the discussion by throwing out varied arguments for abortion to see which one might stick. But just like in the real estate field, the bottom line is that it's about location, location, location.
February 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yeah, you right-to-lifers often make this argument "location doesn't matter". It's goofy. OF COURSE location matters. What I am entitled to depends very heavily on what country I am located in, and on whose property I am located, and most especially on whether or not I am located inside another person's body.
If all the billions of humans alive today--innocent and guilty, great and small, rich and poor, smart and stupid, already-born and unborn--were assembled somewhere inside my body, along with Baby Jesus, Almighty God, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd be entitled to holocaust 'em anytime. That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body", and I'm quite sure if you woke up one day to find that I was located inside your body, you would say the same.
No, SoMG, I wouldn't. It may be a tough challenge but there's probably a loving family out there somewhere who would be willing to adopt you so that I don't have to end your your life.
More seriously, even the infamous, infanticide proponent, Peter Singer, concedes the location argument but, like you, has a low regard for human life. Some of us pro-lifers may be 'goofy' but your attitude is dangerous to humanity.
SoMG, so you're saying that people have a right to kill you if you're in another country or on another person's property? I fail to see the logic in your argument.
Post a Comment