Gutting Babies Like Fish: Some Objections

Gutting Babies Like Fish: Some Objections
by Dave Munger

Looking over my previous Partisan columns, I am dismayed to see that I haven't devoted any to abortion. Rather than repeat my arguments against Roe v. Wade and in favor of legal restrictions on abortion (which I believe are covered on my old homepage: How To Vote Right ), I'll bring up some of the loose ends which should be dealt with.

To me a fetus is obviously human, and I will continue to believe so until proven otherwise. Pro-choice arguments, however, are based on the assumption that the fetus is not human. Several points follow from this assumption:

The pro-choice position is statist. The argument that the fetus is not human is illogical (no other form of life is said not to be a full member of it's species until it reaches a certain status). In the end, the pro-choice argument must resort to the assertion that a fetus is not human because the state says so. Thus, no one is human without the state's approval, which empowers the state to do anything to anyone simply by not recognizing their humanity (as done with the slaves). Limits on government's power are overridden by it's ability to determine who is or is not human, even when free to do so without consulting scientists.

Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. The term 'abortion' refers to an intentional procedure, not a miscarriage. The notion that abortion is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother is based upon the fact that some therapeutic techniques incidentally kill the fetus. Chemotherapy can also be fatal, but that does not make it euthanasia. The statement "Abortion is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother", implicitly concedes that a child exists only in reference to "the mother".

Abortion is not a matter of personal choice. It would be if it was the moral and legal equivalent of birth control, which would only happen if the fetus was found to be as non-human as sperm and ova are (haploid cells, without the full compliment of DNA that humans have). Convince me of this and life would be much more enjoyable!

The anti-abortion position is religious, the pro-choice position is secular. When one asserts that the fetus "becomes human" at some point after it's already known to be a member of the our species, they are in effect saying that what makes us human is something non-physical that inhabits our bodies. Opponents of this belief assume that we are subject to the biological laws evident elsewhere in the the natural world. We consider the fetus to be exactly what it seems to be until proven otherwise. We are skeptics.

Nothing else matters. One often hears from moderate Republicans that abortion is just one issue, that we shouldn't lose sight of others. But in "the abortion issue", we are talking about either a controversial method of birth control or the slaughter of large numbers of infants. In the former case, there is no reason to object at all. In the latter, the situation is about the same as the Holocaust. Being concerned with anything else is like taking the autobahns into account when deciding whether to support Hitler. As a matter of fact, as long as the situation remains as it is, government policies that are harmful to the general public (such as high taxes and infringements on personal liberty) are just.

www.american-partisan.com