And since you are relying on natural law to sustain your case, dont't you find that to be morally very wrong, based on "what can be known about morality by virtue of being human"? Singer argues against speciesism, saying that belonging to a particular species is not morally relevant. You can test this position with specific thought experiments. And you say "human beings have unique and incomparable value in the world. I'm sure that we all agree that humans are "unique", not even Singer would disagree.
And your "imcomparable" is wrong, since you do compare them with other animals, to say that we are superior. As for the right to privacy being fictional.
The Constitution clearly recognizes that the rights it puts in writing are not an exhaustive list. The right to privacy was not created in Roe but before Roe. It's interesting to note that without a right to privacy not only could the state do things like prohibit married couples from using contraception, they could also do the opposite, such as mandate contraception for 'undesirable' married couples or try to order some women to get pregnant and have children to, say, achieve some goal of population growth 2.
The right to take a life in certain cases seems to need some thought. I have a right to take a life to, say, protect my home from invasion by robbers even if those robbers do not intend to kill me. I have a right to say no to a request that I donate my kidney even though the burden on me may be minimal and my refusal will result in certain death of a sympathetic person.
Like many pro-lifers, you seem to confuse the moral problems with the state deciding abortion with the state simply not deciding. In a world where the state is forcing people to have abortions such as is said to happen in China under their 'one child' policy even to this day , the state is morally accountable for the decision to abort as it removes the ability of the woman to do anything In contrast Roe simply moves the burden of evaluating the morality of abortion onto the individual woman.
This seems pretty natural. Spin all the political theories you want about personhood, social contracts, etc. That doesn't alter the fact that we come into the world not through governments, laws, or even marriages but through the bodies of women. It's pretty much accepted that different sovereigns have different jurisdictions. For example, if I accidently kill someone my actions are judged usually by state laws and if I'm convicted of a crime it's usually by a state jury except in certain circumstances where jurisdiction might fall to the Federal gov't or even in the case of some war crimes to an international tribunal.
Simply, when you're an individual in a state you're under state jurisdiction, when you're a cell in a womb your under woman's jurisdiction. Might the woman make an immoral call?
Then again states make immoral calls all the time. Innocent people are convicted, guilty people not, guilty people get convicted but are given punishments that are unjustly harsh etc. As you said it's an imperfect world. Mother's on average probably do a better job than gov'ts but you still have to take a pretty high 'error rate' like it or not. Regardless of whether or not you like the 'natural' idea that women have sovereignty in this area because it's their bodies and their burden because that's just how nature designed humans, pro-lifers often gloss over the distinction between choosing abortion and simply not acting to stop abortion or punish it afterwards.
Pro-lifers, for example, often bemoan Roe because it took abortion 'out of the hands of the states'. But before Roe many states had legalized abortion and absolutely no state punished abortion as murder. Even today when the subject comes up of whether pro-lifers would actually treat women who have abortions as murders, the response is to sow confusion or engage in some creative forms of denial, such as a pseudo-feminist claim that women who get abortions are 'also victims' Legal arguments then, such as a 14th amendment argument against abortion, should honestly be discussed not as returning a pre-Roe status quo but actually a radical change in legal thought.
I won't respond to the legal argument, but I agree with the dissenting opinion in Roe that this was an act of "raw judicial power. That is simply why abortion should be criminalized. A woman has no sovereignty or autonomy over the other life within her. That should be valued virtuously. By decriminalizing abortion, the state opened the doors to 52 million abortion, the vast majority of which were not needed to save the life or even improve the health of mother.
Incomparable concerns value; it does not means there is no comparison whatsoever, but that we have a unique value not on a par with anything else. You are giving a jaundiced reading of the word to try to make me look silly, but there is nothing wrong with the way I used the word,.
Saturday, January 22, Why I am Pro-life: A Short, Nonsectarian Argument. Thirty eight years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States of America overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states in an act of "raw judicial power" and deep legal illogic , finding a nonexistent "right to privacy in the Constitution" that was applied to abortion. Perhaps fifty-two million unborn human beings have been legal killed by abortion since that grim day.
Today President Barack Obama applauded this egregious and blood-letting decision. Of course, he did; he has premised his abominable political career on being on the wrong side of this life-and-death issue. One cannot be pro-life and support this man. I wrote the following essay as a short, philosophical defense of the pro-life position.
It has been published in a secular textbook, Taking Sides , a work on moral issues. Please ponder this argument, spread the word, and promote the culture of life against the culture of death and callousness.
Posted by Douglas Groothuis, Ph. You are giving a jaundiced reading of the word to try to make me look silly, but there is nothing wrong with the way I used the word, So what is your argument against Singer's critique of speciesism? Thank you for posting this essay. Want to talk about this topic in my class of communication. Newer Post Older Post Home. Propositions to Ponder Why I am Pro-life: A Short, Nonsectarian Argument The Christian Worldview in a Nutshel but please d If this bleeding, broken, and groaning world does My Talk at Crossroads Church, Jan.
Lament and jeremiad must be met in equal measure About Me Douglas Groothuis, Ph. Nothing on this blog represents the position of Denver Seminary. I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher, writer, and preacher, who is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. My most recent of my twelve books is Philosophy in Seven Sentences. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus.
View my complete profile. She does this of her own free will, and is in control over what she is doing. If a person decides to have sex, whether it is done with protection or not, the result is her responsibility and she must be willing to deal with the consequences. One such consequence is getting pregnant.
When a woman gets pregnant, it is usually a result of her own choices, even if the pregnancy is unwanted or unplanned. The most obvious reason why I think that abortion is immoral is because it is the intentional killing of a human being. It is a well-known fact that life begins at the moment of conception.
If it is murder to kill a human being in any stage of life, then abortion, the murder of the fetus, is obviously wrong, because murder is one of the ethical absolutes. When we perform an abortion, we take the life of an innocent child. We deny the unborn child its right to live and experience the world.
No one has thee right to take the life of another person, even an unborn child.
Abortion Essay. Abortion Thou shall not murder is one of the Ten Commandments from the Bible. Is a mother's right to choose considered murder?
"Argumentative Essay Against Abortion" Essays and Research Papers Argumentative Essay Against Abortion ABORTION SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL The definition of abortion, also called voluntary abortion, is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
- An Argument Against Abortion Abortion is a serious topic that people have been debating about for years. Everywhere you turn the topic of abortion presents itself, . The word abortion by definition means the induced expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. Abortion is an extremely controversial issue because while some people are completely against it, others believe that a woman should have the right to choose. I believe /5(9).
Argument Against Abortion. 3 Pages Words. Reflection Paper – Abortion The word abortion by definition means the induced expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it . Free Essays from Bartleby | Argument against HRSDC Arguments against HRSDC In the year , the government of Canada announced the creation of two new.