A powerful argument against abortion is that everyone has a right to life. Under this view a fetus, an embryo or in some religious doctrines even a newly fertilized egg is a human being with a right to live.
Photo provided by Flickr
The fact an embryo may not know it is being terminated and may not feelany pain in being terminated is not alone justification or sufficientgrounds for terminating its development; it is only grounds for makingsuch terminations, when they are justified, less terrible and inhumanethan they might be at some later time, whether natural or man-made. Thebasic justification for any abortion is essentially that -- apart fromcases such as likely maternal death in pregnancy, where someone else hasa right overriding the fetus' development -- it is the best time for theaborted individual to die (i.e., have its development ended), and thatthe longer the individual develops, matures, or lives, the worse for himor her. In any such case evidence needs to be given for that, and thatevidence and argument needs to be substantial. This is probably the implicitargument given by people who do have the best interest of the embryo and/orfuture person at heart. It is the implicit part of my earlier argumentthat causing a person to be born to a life of unremitting and unredeemingpain and/or sorrow seems to be much crueler than aborting that person asan embryo. This is sometimes part of the argument for cases involving painand sorrow that are terrible, though not unremitting, and other kinds ofcases, as in severe retardation or brain damage, that may not involve muchsuffering as such at all for the individual him/herself, but which stillseem either unredeemingly sorrowful enough, or which for a different reasonmake the individual's life such he or she would have somehow beenbetter off not to have been born than to live the kind of life he/she does.I only mention these cases to explain their general line of reasoning;I do not go into their specifics here.
Free argument against abortion Essays and Papers
Photo provided by Pexels
I once ventured upon some adolescent boys getting ready to torture ayoung cat by throwing it into a mass of sticker bushes to see how it woulddo. I interceded on behalf of the cat. The main antagonist, a fairly largeboy, was displeased by my intervention and said that I had no businessinterfering with their fun. His main comment was that it was his cat andhe could do anything he wanted to it. I take it that this is a form ofthe privacy (and private property) argument, that this was a private matterand I had no right to intervene. I did not at the time see fit to arguethe merits of the case on that particular issue and instead gave him othergrounds which I thought might appeal to him. I suggested that if he couldnot see any reason to see the similarity between the cat's feelings andhis own that I might help him see the relationship in this instance betweenthe cat's well-being and his own. This convinced him for the time at leastthat harming the cat might not be in his own best interest. But it occurredto me later that the cat's being his cat gave him not less responsibilityfor its well-being, as he seemed to think, but gave him even more responsibilityfor its well-being. In general, the owners of pets and the parents of youngchildren are held responsible for at least certain minimal standards oftheir charges' welfare. Recently enacted laws in a number of states requiringparents to have their children in car restraints while the car is in motionis another example of balancing parental privacy with child welfare onthe side of the welfare rather than privacy. And it does seem to me, havingseen so many parents who dangerously, carelessly, and recklessly allowtheir children to ride standing up on the front seat (as if to give theirheads better aim at the windshields in case of sudden braking or frontalcollision) that the innocent child should have a champion in the stateif the parents do not fulfill reasonable obligations. In general, a womandoes have some responsibility toward her children and even toward her unbornfetus. How much is open to discussion. And in general parents cannot justifablytreat their children any way they would want to, especially if that meansharming or killing the child, or risking its life or health needlessly.I would expect there to be made similar cases for fetal rights, thoughjust how much, and whether it could preclude abortion or not, and underwhat circumstances, is what is at issue. The point here is that privacy,by itself, is insufficient to morally justify abortion and/or other sortsof fetal harm -- regardless of the Supreme Court's legal decision.