The claim: there should be a legal right to abort a pregnancy.
I say: Stopping a child being born destroys that entire persons life. Abortion is wrong because it is murder and even if you don’t want to call it murder it is wrong for all the same reasons murder is wrong. As a society we have an obligation to prevent one person from killing another. Whenever we fail to do that a kind of trust is betrayed, that lesson the value of each human life and because of that lessoning of value of the individual every citizen of our nation, is in greater danger..
Objection 1: it isn’t a person it is a lump cells.
I say that:
This idea can be debunked in a number of.ways.
First a genetic test will disagree. The subject of study can be easily proven to be a member of the genus home sapious in an early stage of development.
Secondly if it were true that ‘only’ a lump of cells would be destroyed then the lump of cells would be of no more consequence then a tonsil. Yet we are arguing about this issue precisely because of what those cells are and will be , which is a human person at one stage that will become a human person at another.
Objection 2: what about a woman’s right to here body?
aka ( my body my choice)
I would agree that the right a person has to bodily sovereignty is one of the most important of all rights, however, like all rights it has certain logical limits that are based on how the individual possessed of that right interacts with others and their environment. First there needs to be an acknowledgement that that in order to exercise the right to bodily sovereignty one must be alive. So the right to be alive is a higher and more important right then the right to bodily sovereignty because one depends on the other.
Secondly I would note that one persons right to bodily sovereignty does not give them the right to violate someone else right of bodily sovereignty. As the old adage goes ‘your right to swing your arm ends at the place the next person nose begins’.
So a woman’s right to bodily sovereignty does not give her the right to violate or impinge on her child’s bodily sovereignty more to the point it cannot give her the right to impinge on her child’s right to be alive because the right to bodily sovereignty is a lesser right then the right to be alive.
Reply to Objection 2:
I have a friend who needs a kidney , so your right to bodily integrity should give way to his/her right to life.
I answer, there are multiple errors in the replay to the objection. First there is a significant difference between being compelled to do something and being compelled NOT to do something. In the case of abortion a person is being compelled not to kill another person and their actions directly cause that death. In the case mentioned above the person may need help, but that need in itself does not create a requirement of another for action.
Second the person being reference has no claim to another kidney, there is no supposed relationship that would make such a claim binding and the was no voluntary relationship entered into.
In the case of pregnancy, with the exception of rape, the woman seeking to kill another human being is seeking that action as a way of avoiding the consequences of a risk she willing took.
A better analogy would be if your sister drank something poisons knowing it would destroy her kidneys, she only did so to earn a million dollars for you and only after you had agreed to and signed legal contracts to document your agreement , that you would give her your kidney as a replacement. Only now that you have the million dollars you don’t want to go through with it.
This is a better analogy for several reasons, first of all the closeness of the relationship, secondly the voluntary obligation taken on by the second person to gain something that is only for their benefit. In the case of abortion the mother wanted to have sex with someone for some reason, an action that was only for hers and possibly her partners benefit, something she willingly took on with full knowledge of that could happen. Then only after the fact, when a child has become an inconvenience does she seek to escape the consequences of the course of action she undertook.
Objection 3: You should not impose your religions views on me ( aka keep your bible off my uterus)
Please see a right by any other name does not exists to understand why this argument is nonsense.