Metaphysical Argument Against Abortion 2

If you question the morality of abortion, then you should also question its legality.

Why? Because abortion is murder. It involves willfully killing an innocent human being, which is morally corrupt, because it is murder.

To show why that is the case, one needs to first show that the child in the womb, from the moment of its conception, is a human person. Once that premise is established, the rest of the argument follows: If you accept that the unborn child is a human person then you also must accept that abortion is not only immoral, but should also be illegal.

Here are some indisputable  facts taken from an article from LiveAction.org, to argue that the unborn child is a human person:

Indisputable Fact No. 1: When a woman is pregnant, there is something in her. It has existence. It has being. That is in fact why there is any discussion on this whatsoever. If nothing existed inside the womb, what would be the point of an abortion?

Indisputable Fact No. 2: We all come from thissomething when we are born. When this something comes out of her, it is what we call a “baby”. It looks like the picture left. This fact naturally implies…

Indisputable Fact No. 3: At some point, whether sometime before birth, at birth, or after birth this is considered a “person”, a “somebody”, and has basic rights. This eventually becomes a toddler, teenager, adult, etc. All of us used to be that baby. We are all humans. So at some point this thing becomes or always was a human. Since I don’t know how you can say that human beings (all of us) aren’t actually human, I trust that this fact is not disputed.

To read the full argument, follow this link to LiveAction.org.

[photo-credit]

2 comments

  1. Though I agree with what you are saying. Looks like you might have competition…. http://www.battleforthecoreoftheworld.com/2012/02/cutting-edge-of-bioethics-after-birth.html

    What is the basis of this…it’s the idea that all good and evil is reducible to feelings. Baby’s in the womb don’t necessarily feel the pain as much as the mother will have to “feel” the inconvenience of raising the child. Apparently the same is true outside the womb. Where do basic rights even come from? The constitution isn’t enough of an authority for most people….neither is the categorical imperative. I think a lot of people out there love to say they are moral objectivists but on the inside they aren’t because there is no motivation for them to obey that to which they can’t see the immediate benefit of obeying. Utilitarianism is strong nowadays.

    • Utilitarianism 101. Just a combox reply, so pardon the lack of depth. But if good and evil were reducible to feelings of pleasure and pain, would we go to the dentist? Would Dads get up at 4:00 in the morning to go to work? Would lenten sacrifices make sense?

      These are not to be taken as knock-down-counterarguments, but let’s just consider the fact that equating pleasure and pain with good and evil is easy to swallow, but hard to digest once you really start to think about it.

      Metaphysical arguments, which the utilitarian approach tries to avoid, are more difficult but also more convincing to the one who takes the effort to understand them.

      If Utilitarianism is strong today, it is because we live in a hedonistic society, looking for easy answers, and more concerned with feeling good than knowing truth.

      Basic rights… If the ultimate foundation for rights is sentience, then a chimpanzee or a dog has more rights and more moral value than an unborn child (arguably, even more than a newborn child). Is there not something fundamentally wrong with seeing things that way? Well if our legal system goes further down the utilitarian route than it already has, just imagine the consequences…

      The inviolable dignity of the human person is rooted in his nature as a moral agent, which follows from the type of being that he is. Whether we are considering the unborn child or the Alzheimer’s patient, it’s a person, made in the image of God, with an intellectual soul and free will, even if the person in question has not yet developed or has already lost the capacity to exercise these natural God-given factulties.

      Every person, unborn or near the end of life, is by nature the type of being worthy of love because he is capable of love and, for those who have faith, is infinitely loved by the God who created him or her for the sake of love.

      John Stuart Mill, Jeramy Bentham, Peter Singer, and the rest of the Utilitarian crowd choose to miss the deeper underlying facts of human existence.

      Thanks for your comment, Jon!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s