"Life's Ethical Tapestry: The Deepest Questions Behind Abortion Laws"
Upon reading about how some states are initiating laws that ban abortion as soon as a “heartbeat” is heard, I can’t help but ponder the profound question: when does life truly begin?
Associated Press reports extensively on this matter, shedding light on the ongoing debate.
Another article from ThoughtCo delves even deeper, asking the provocative question: Is Abortion Murder?
Yet, beneath the surface of these debates lies a more profound inquiry. Does a woman’s right to choose supersede the potential right of a life gestating within her? Are there not two sets of rights in play here, each deserving consideration? Shouldn’t the highest chambers of Congress (the US Congress) be engaging in thoughtful discourse on these matters?
“To believe or not to believe… that is the question!” Does it matter whether an individual’s moral compass leads them to regard a pre-viable embryo or fetus as a sentient human being? Alternatively, is it plausible to hold no such convictions and view a fetus as a non-sentient organism?
A clarifying perspective comes from a Princeton University article: Life Begins at Fertilization. It asserts that a new human embryo, the nascent point of human existence, takes form with the creation of the one-celled zygote.
So, if life indeed commences at fertilization, it naturally beckons the question: why should it be within a woman’s purview to dictate when life ends?
In light of this revelation, the notion presented in the article “Is Abortion Murder?” becomes more complex. If life truly commences at fertilization, then a woman and her physician cannot simply view it as the termination of a non-sentient organism. From a standpoint of logic and science, there exists the potential for criminal negligence for not acknowledging that a pre-viable embryo or fetus is indeed a sentient human being. Science has categorically determined that life embarks at conception, rendering abortion a profoundly grave matter.
However, a counterargument arises: what if the conception resulted from a heinous act, such as rape?
Statistics reveal that the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45).
In my humble opinion, it is Congress, with a capital C, that should be grappling with these profound issues and striving to resolve them. Sadly, the reality is that we may not have elected representatives who possess the capacity to navigate the intricate intersections of law, morality, politics, theology, and philosophy. It appears that, collectively, our society may not be as intellectually equipped as it once was a century ago.
It’s vital to remember that the Court doesn’t create law; it interprets it. The fact that it assumed this role in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade speaks volumes about the capabilities of our elected officials. Congress, on the other hand, is tasked with crafting legislation, not merely interpreting it. Our President, meanwhile, upholds and enforces these laws. Regrettably, rather than engaging in rigorous debate and thoughtful contemplation of the profound issues before them, our political leaders often resort to the theatrics of blame and partisanship, leaving critical questions unanswered and the public yearning for true leadership.
I really appreciate this post. Clear, concise, and open to discussion. These are things that have been lacking in the abortion debate, and it is refreshing to come across someone who is willing to ask the tough questions.
I am absolutely pro-life, and would like to answer to the best of my abilities. First, even before Roe v Wade, the texts used to teach Embryology have maintained that life begins at fertilization. One example, published in 1968, says,
“The formation, maturation, and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.” -“Human Embryology”, 3rd ed., Dr. Bradley Patten
Moving forward to today we have,
“Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual…” -“The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology”, 10th ed., Moore and Persaud, published in 2015
Note that both say the same thing, that life begins at fertilization. They also say that we are new, unique, and individual at that moment. This is significant, or ought to be. In either case, it makes clear that an unborn baby is most definitely a human being.
Now, to address a question you asked. Whose rights trump whose? I subscribe to a philosophy that dictates that my rights end where your rights begin, and vise versa. In other words, I take the idea of bodily autonomy and apply it to both baby and mother. This means that the mother has no right to take the life of her child, as said child has an inherent right to life, along with every other human right we acknowledge.
What about in cases of rape or incest? Well, allow me to answer a question with a question. Do we give the death penalty to rapists or people involved in incestuous relationships? If so, then one MIGHT be able to make a case, except that we then run into the right of due process.
In this country, we don’t typically punish people for crimes they didn’t commit, and we don’t typically mete out punishment that is not proportionate to the crime. If we don’t execute people for rape or incest, why would we find the execution of an innocent acceptable in cases such as these?
In all reality, an unborn child is literally incapable of committing a crime, let alone one for which capital punishment is a viable option. As such, executing them for the crimes of their parents isn’t just illogical or irrational, but also wrong.
If it can’t be justified, then abortion meets the criteria for murder. According to law, murder is the unjustified taking of a human life, and I can find zero justification for an abortion. In short, abortion is murder, and shouldn’t have ever been legalized.
Now, to conclude, I will address one more point, that of the father. Barring any mitigating circumstances (rape for example), I see no reason why the biological father shouldn’t be allowed to have a voice. Does this mean that men aren’t somehow lacking in the area of responsibility these days? No, absolutely not. However, I can personally attest to the fact that the courts are very thorough in ensuring that a non-custodial father sees to his responsibilities.
Would I rather see children born only to married couples? Yes, ideally speaking. Sadly, this isn’t always the case. In the event that doesn’t happen, there are a myriad of options available for the mothers, none of which involve the slaughter of innocents.
Thank you for the chance to say my piece.
You’re welcome and thank you for arguing about the rape issue.
You’re welcome. It’s a point worth arguing.