Quite honestly I wasn’t sure I’d ever get into this “Abortion Debate” ever again. I’m tentatively closing the comments section on this one just because I am NOT going to respond to the overwhelming yes and nos that lead to nothing constructive and ultimately waste my precious time. Especially since the utmost invaluable comments tend to be those who point out that I’m a man, and therefore cannot defend life.  As you can see by my infrequent postings, my senior semester is getting the better part of my time.

What is the nature, the origin, of the unborn?

If it is not human, what is it? If it is not human, then no justification is necessary. If it  is human, no justification is sufficient.  We do not kill people for the reasons we justify abortion.

Clearly it is human. So we have our first agreement.  At what point it becomes human is objectionable. I, for one, believe that once it is a separate human genome, DNA, it is no longer yours to own or possess much like your child is not yours to own or possess. Our children are not our slaves.

As an agnostic I have never made the case of my previous pro-choice stance based on religion (obviously) and have never made my extremely strong stance these last few years as a pro-life person.

If a woman is kicked to the ground and is kicked in the stomach how do you feel? I hope you wouldn’t say neutral?

Does your feeling change if the woman is pregnant?  Make a difference?

We cannot  dodge principle if we are to have a constructive conversation. Would you not express greater emotional concern over a woman getting kicked in the stomach by an attacker if she were pregnant as opposed to not?

I can’t make further argument until you realize that we, as a society, do place inherent value on unborn life. Our laws reflect it, and our laws reflect our mores.

Your instincts, powers of observation ,and rationale all place value on the unborn already. There are laws in place to protect the unborn (except from their mothers).

If I cause a car accident, and a pregnant woman is injured at my fault and her baby killed, why is that life valued in the U.S. court of law?

There are clearly moral implications about the squeamish nature of the issue of abortion.

Both sides must agree that the concept of “unborn child” is a real one.

There are many ways to logically argue for and against abortion.

Often it is argued that an infant has no right to life if it cannot lead a life of its own. So long as it is dependent on its host it is subject to the very will of its master.

Infants cannot take on lives of their own. Even a 2-year-old cannot survive in the wilderness. Most 4-6 year olds couldn’t survive in the wilderness. So the logic of “take on a life of its own” is not a valid argument, in my mind. We nurse the human child well into adolescence.   The “parasite” argument is invalid for the very reason that humans are often parasites for nearly a decade at the least. The simple logical argument that a parasite should naturally be subject to its hosts every injustice is invalidated by the aforementioned fact.

Isn’t a 3-year-old wholly dependent on its parent/host? How many 1 year olds would survive if left alone?

How is the unborn child, requiring nutrition, shelter, warmth, from the mother in the womb any different from requiring all of the above once it is born?

The term absolutely can apply. Whether you want it to or not is a different matter.

I use the term literally:

1: a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Dependency is at the core of the definition of parasite.

I’ll quote for you the Hippocratic oath:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.I will not be ashamed to say “I know not”, nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

If we do support infanticide, which is arguably what abortion is; the killing of infants. Is a 7 month old child less of an infant or less human than a freshly born 9 month old?

The concept, “an unborn child” is indeed a real concept.  It is an undeniable truth that it is a rational concept.   Where we draw that line is the debate which is at hand here.

Often times it is important to take a detour from our debate to bring principle into view before we return to the debate. Logical argument is all the better for setting the rules of the game.

What about viability? This is also often brought up as well. This is where I personalize my objections to abortion as I was a prime candidate:

I was also a twin, born to a diabetic mother, 9 weeks premature. My father was a cocaine addict (unbeknownst to my mom until about the same time she found out she was pregnant.) I’ve seen him twice since I was born. I was a perfect candidate for abortion at several stages. I do have to point out that all of the people who are pro-choice are alive and well today to assert their points of view. Albert Einstein was born extremely poor, so was Oprah, Abraham Lincoln, and many very valuable contributors to our history and intellect were born in very impoverished homes.

So my mother was well within her right to kill me the day before she had my brother and I at ~30 weeks? Where my brother and I were clearly viable lives?

It is a  very complicated issue. I’m here to tell both sides that the argument is a secular one, and does not need religion to defeat the forceful killing of another human being.

I will be clear in saying that I am still a materialist, a humanist, and a consequentialist libertarian.  I believe that force is only a moral response to force.  Women who are raped, whose lives are at risk, are being subjected to a varying degree of force either by the infant or their rapist.

I do not want to control your uterus. Period. I want you to control your own uterus however you wish. It is your property and yours to do with as you please.  I wish the same for your home. Your home belongs to you and no one else. Do with is as you please so long as you harm no one else. No one reading this article would find it rational, nor moral to kill any guests into your home simply because you do not want them there. (Provided you were not raped, then you have an intruder, not a guest.)

Both sides need to accept there are rational arguments for both cases without using religion. I’ve never argued against abortion on religious grounds, it isn’t even remotely necessary. Nor do I have the theological understanding to do so adequately.

Author’s note: I’ve been up since 5am as of writing this at 12:30, I have to get up again at 5am to conduct my morning news program. I apologize for any misspellings and bad writings. I’ll edit it more later.

Got this from a friend, this is an image of a baby at 12 weeks gestation:

If that’s not human, what is?