This article presents an argument that is poorly presented, and poorly defended. A fetus, especially one less than 20 weeks, is not a child. It is an error to present the equivalency of an early stage fetus to an infant, or even a fetus that can survive outside the womb.
At what point does a child become a child? How do you arbitrarily draw a line and say this a child and this is not, therefore it is okay to murder? As soon as conception occurs, a child is growing and developing every second and attaching a specified date determining whether or not it is a child is asinine. A newborn child cannot survive on its own, it needs its parents just as a fetus needs its mother to grow and develop. Neglecting a newborn child and abortion are the same: murder.
I think we can solve this debate with a different comparison... The people who typically defend "choice" also tend to fight against the death penalty. Why? Because that person on death row has the potential to rehabilitate and, as a society, we need to nurture them until they do. So it's the potential that makes a difference? The fetus/embryo/mass of cells will be a human being if nurtured in a natural way... in a way that is actually much easier (in most cases) than caring for a grown person. Does it need to be easier for the unwanted babies to be adopted? Yep. Do we need to value human life? All of it? Yep. It amazes me that pro-lifers are typically pro-death penalty and that pro-choicers are typically anti-death penalty. Pick a side...
And you can spin arguments the opposite way as well. The people who usually promote "life" are the same ones who want to eliminate contraceptives, ban sex education and programs that help the child and mother. and of course their response to people seeking aid is "Well you chose to have the child, you deal with it".
"Being responsible after discovering a pregnancy" is a different discussion from "being responsible while having sex." Don't misunderstand me; on not on either of those sides above. I am against abortion and I'm against the death penalty. (There are days when I see news about a pedophile and I think the death penalty is acceptable, but that sort of emotional reaction is one of the reasons we have Due Process and a system to deal with criminals.)
But there is the rub. You are advocating taking the choice away, so there would be no choice. Even if someone is responsible while having sex, very few contraceptive practices are 100% effective. Should a poor, married couple be abstinent because of this?
"taking a life" should not be a legal option for anyone but the person to whom the life belongs. If a poor married couple can't afford a kid and they accidentally get pregnant, there is an adoption program in this country that could be used, even though it needs quite a bit of work as well. My wife and I had our first kid before we could technically afford one, but it worked out. We worked hard (I had three jobs one semester in college), they got WIC and Arkansas actually has a free birth control program that helped us prevent another unexpected miracle. :)
Making abortion illegal (and the death penalty) is not perfect, but it's better than humans killing other humans.
Pin it! 
10 comments
Login to comment →
Robb 11 years ago
Good article. Worth the read, gentlemen. Thank you for posting this.
Reply
egro 11 years ago
This article presents an argument that is poorly presented, and poorly defended. A fetus, especially one less than 20 weeks, is not a child. It is an error to present the equivalency of an early stage fetus to an infant, or even a fetus that can survive outside the womb.
Reply
TheGreatDane 11 years ago
At what point does a child become a child? How do you arbitrarily draw a line and say this a child and this is not, therefore it is okay to murder? As soon as conception occurs, a child is growing and developing every second and attaching a specified date determining whether or not it is a child is asinine. A newborn child cannot survive on its own, it needs its parents just as a fetus needs its mother to grow and develop. Neglecting a newborn child and abortion are the same: murder.
Reply
egro 11 years ago
So a single cell is a child, in your opinion?
Reply
TheGreatDane 11 years ago
Once the sperm joins the egg, yes, I believe so.
Reply
jgreene777 11 years ago
I think we can solve this debate with a different comparison... The people who typically defend "choice" also tend to fight against the death penalty. Why? Because that person on death row has the potential to rehabilitate and, as a society, we need to nurture them until they do. So it's the potential that makes a difference? The fetus/embryo/mass of cells will be a human being if nurtured in a natural way... in a way that is actually much easier (in most cases) than caring for a grown person. Does it need to be easier for the unwanted babies to be adopted? Yep. Do we need to value human life? All of it? Yep. It amazes me that pro-lifers are typically pro-death penalty and that pro-choicers are typically anti-death penalty. Pick a side...
Reply
duncanfj 11 years ago
And you can spin arguments the opposite way as well. The people who usually promote "life" are the same ones who want to eliminate contraceptives, ban sex education and programs that help the child and mother. and of course their response to people seeking aid is "Well you chose to have the child, you deal with it".
Reply
jgreene777 11 years ago
"Being responsible after discovering a pregnancy" is a different discussion from "being responsible while having sex." Don't misunderstand me; on not on either of those sides above. I am against abortion and I'm against the death penalty. (There are days when I see news about a pedophile and I think the death penalty is acceptable, but that sort of emotional reaction is one of the reasons we have Due Process and a system to deal with criminals.)
And again, the two choices are separate.
Reply
duncanfj 11 years ago
But there is the rub. You are advocating taking the choice away, so there would be no choice. Even if someone is responsible while having sex, very few contraceptive practices are 100% effective. Should a poor, married couple be abstinent because of this?
Reply
jgreene777 11 years ago
"taking a life" should not be a legal option for anyone but the person to whom the life belongs. If a poor married couple can't afford a kid and they accidentally get pregnant, there is an adoption program in this country that could be used, even though it needs quite a bit of work as well. My wife and I had our first kid before we could technically afford one, but it worked out. We worked hard (I had three jobs one semester in college), they got WIC and Arkansas actually has a free birth control program that helped us prevent another unexpected miracle. :)
Making abortion illegal (and the death penalty) is not perfect, but it's better than humans killing other humans.
Reply