Preamble

      This document was written to express my ideas  on  abortion
and to justify my stance as an  anti-abortionist.   It  was  also
written  because  I  became  weary   of   conducting   electronic
arguments on this subject wherein I would waste  time  typing  in
the same arguments over and over again.


Part of a woman's body?

      One argument in favor of abortion has  been  that  a  woman
should have the right to do what she wants  with  her  own  body.
There are two errors in this argument.  Firstly,  that no  person
has complete and all encompassing authority  of  over  his  body,
nor is such authority recognised in law.  For example, suicide is
illegal and there are good arguments as to why it's immoral.  The
point of this is that the generalization that a  person  has  the
right to do what he chooses with his  own  body  is  not  without
exceptions.  Even so,  if that generalization  were  conceded  to
only for the sake of argument (which  it  isn't),   it  would  be
discovered that it does not apply to abortion anyway because  the
unborn is not part of the woman's body but is  a  separate  human
being.

      There are some that will argue that the unborn is  part  of
the woman's  body  anyway  but  that  is  strange  because  other
parasitic organisms are not considered part of the  host's  body.
For example,  a tapeworm is not considered  part  of  its  host's
body and there are good scientific and philosophical reasons  for
this.  For example, life can be defined by its properties such as
irritability,  reproduction,  metabolism and all the others  that
one learns about in a grade seven science  class.   I  especially
prefer a definition that comes  from  philosophy  which  is  that
"life strives towards its own self-perfection" since  that  seems
to  distil  the  scientific   definition   into   the   essential
ingredient.  In any case,  the unborn is a  center  of  the  life
process  distinct  from  the  host  and   therefore   should   be
considered to  be  a  separate  organism;   It  exhibits  growth,
metabolism etc., and it strives towards self-perfection.

       Incidentally,   the  unborn  lives  up   to   the   strict
application of the five scientific criteria as  well  as  any  of
us.  For example,  reproduction is one  of  the  criteria  but  a
particular organism is not considered dead in the event  that  it
is rendered sterile;  the reproduction criteria  applies  to  the
species of an organism and the unborn is of a  species  that  has
the potential of reproduction.  Another  reason  why  the  unborn
should be considered separate is that its DNA is  different  from
both the  mother's  and  the  father's  so  it  is,   genetically
speaking, a separate organism.

      But getting  back  to  the  tapeworm  analogy,   while  the
tapeworm is not part of its host's body,  the host has the  right
to eradicate it because it is a harmful non-human  parasite.   In
contrast,  the unborn is a human being in a  parasitic  stage  of
development.


But isn't the unborn is just a lump of cells?

      The unborn is more than a lump of cells  in  the  way  that
adult human beings and other multicellular  organisms  are.   The
unborn is made up of cells which function  cooperatively  in  the
unity of a single organism.


How do we know that the unborn is human?

      The most compelling arguments  against  abortion  hinge  on
the humanity of the unborn.  If the  unborn  is  human  then  the
abortion of the unborn is killing a human person.  Therefore,  it
is important to decide whether the unborn is human and,  if it is
not,  when the point is at which it becomes human.  As a  prelude
to attacking this problem,  it is useful to define two  kinds  of
change: substantial change and accidental change.

      A substantial change is a  change  in  the  species  of  an
object,  whereas an accidental  change  is  of  relatively  minor
significance.  For example, cutting off a man's arm does not make
him other than a man.  As such a change would not change the  man
into something else and so the man remains a member of  the  same
species,  the change is an accidental one.  However  killing  the
man makes him not a man.  A dead man is of an entirely  different
species from  a  living  man  and  so  this  sort  of  change  is
substantial.

      Looking at the sperm and egg,  these gametes share  neither
the capacities nor the potential of members of the human  species
and so they are not people.  But at the moment of conception,   a
substantial change occurs in which the newly created  zygote  has
the potential to develop all of the capacities of a human  person
without any other substantial change and  is  therefore  a  human
person.  It may be difficult for some people to wrap their  minds
around this idea but consider that newborns are considered to  be
human beings even though they do not exhibit the abilities of  an
adult  human  being  and  they  are  only  crudely   similar   in
appearance.

      But someone may argue that  the  change  from  a  parasitic
being to a non-parasitic being,  as  in  the  time  of  delivery,
constitutes a substantial change.  But the newborn is still  just
as dependent on human hospitality as it  was  during  during  its
time of gestation.  And a man would not stop being a  man  if  he
was forced into the same state of biological  dependence  as  the
foetus.  The biological disposition of the foetus with respect to
its host is only accidental because it has only to  do  with  the
manner in which nourishment is acquired and nothing  to  do  with
the species of the organism that acquires it.

      Abortionists like to draw  the  line  at  when  the  unborn
becomes a person at the  time  of  delivery.   But  there  is  no
substantial change in the foetus at delivery.  In fact,  there is
no  substantial  change  in  the  unborn  between  the  time   of
conception and the time of death.  It is therefore  illogical  to
make such an arbitrary distinction.

      In the time  before  the  Copernican  model  of  the  solar
system was popular,   scholars  used  a  system  wherein  planets
orbited about regions of empty space instead  of  around  centers
of matter.  One of the reasons the older model was  discarded  is
that there was no discernible  reason  why  bodies  should  orbit
nothing and so the model was inferior because  of  this  lack  of
intellectual coherence.  Likewise,  the idea that foetuses become
human at the time of delivery should be discarded.  It is at  the
time of conception that people come into being.

      But suppose it is contended that  these  arguments  do  not
prove the humanity of the unborn.  The  burden  of  proof  really
falls on the abortionists  anyway.   In  any  decision  involving
uncertainty,  and where the outcome can have a direct bearing  on
the fortunes of the innocent,  the most prudent and  conservative
choice is the most responsible.  This is why  it  is  illegal  to
discharge  firearms  within  city  limits.   If  a  firearm  were
discharged in this manner,  and someone was accidentally  injured
as a result,  any fact of the injury being an accident would  not
be an adequate defense.


So what if the unborn is human?  Surely,  the  host  should  have
more rights than the unborn because potential does not  count  as
much as actuality.

      A way to expose the falsehood in a principle  is  to  apply
it to a real-life situation and show that its application  yeilds
unacceptable results.  Extrapolating the principle that actuality
should determine human gives rise to the  conclusion  that  those
who do not actualize their intelligence as much as others  should
not have the  same  strength  of  rights  as  others.   Likewise,
applying  the  above  principle,   the  rights  of   whole-bodied
individuals  should  have  more  consideration  than   those   of
disabled individuals (who have  not  or  cannot  actualize  their
physical being according to specifications).  This amounts  to  a
"might makes right" philosophy in  which  the  rights  of  weaker
must defer to those of the  stronger  or  those  who  better  fit
certain specifications are considered more worthy than those  who
do not.

      But the entire principle of justice is  the  protection  of
the innocent from  the  machinations  of  those  who  would  take
advantage  of  any  relative  weakness.   And  so,   once  it  is
established that the unborn is human,  the principle that it  has
less rights than the host is unjust.  It is the stuff  that  Nazi
holocausts are made of.


What about rape and incest?

      Most anti-abortion propaganda says that  it  is  relatively
unlikely for conception to occur as a result of rape.  This isn't
a very good objection since it does not  address  the  few  cases
where such may happen.  However,  once the humanity of the unborn
is recognised,  the problem is clearly one of  justice.   When  a
crime is  committed,   the  offender  is  punished  but  not  his
children or anyone else (at least  not  intentionally)  to  which
guilt cannot be justly apportioned.  This is because it is unjust
to punish the innocent.   In  fact,   it  is  quite  proper  that
manslaughter be considered a separate crime from murder  and  for
murder to be categorized according to degrees.  In  the  case  of
manslaughter,  there is guilt by circumstance but not  by  intent
and so the criminal is  innocent  of  the  crime  of  murder  but
guilty of whatever irresponsibility precipitated the tragedy.

      And so,  while it is an extreme hardship to bear and  raise
the progeny of a rapist or sexual abuser,  the unborn  is  simply
not guilty of the crime.  Besides,   the  penalty  for  rape  and
incest is not death and so abortion is  an  unjustified  response
even if such guilt could be imputed.

      Another objection to the "what about rape?  "  argument  is
that, if it were valid,  it would apply only to cases of rape and
sexual abuse but abortionists argue it in favor  of  abortion  in
general.


What if the pregnant person can't look after a child?

      If it is impossible for the pregnant person to  look  after
the child,  the child can be carried to term  and  then  adopted.
Abortionists  sometimes  exploit  the  emotional  issue  of  teen
pregnancy but it seems that few of  these  teens  need  face  the
burden alone because they have families.  Indeed,  most  pregnant
teens' families have the power to  completely  raise  the  child.
But even this is not a necessity since it can be carried to  term
and given up for adoption.

      Adoption is just as effective a mechanism for preventing  a
teen from being a single  parent  as  abortion.   It  is  because
families do not tolerate the embarrassment that teens are  forced
to have abortions.  It is hard to believe that families  of  such
an affluent culture as ours  can  weigh  their  embarrassment  or
their social prestige against a human life in that way.   However
it is that a human being comes into existence,  he  deserves  our
hospitality during his time of need.


Women might seek back alley abortions otherwise.

      Suppose it is necessary for someone to incur personal  risk
in order to perform a wrong act;  then it is improper to aid that
person to commit the wrong  act  on  that  basis.   For  example,
suppose, in order shoplift,  the criminal must incur some risk to
his health;  then it would be  wrong  to  help  the  criminal  to
shoplift because of his risk.  People  should  not  be  protected
from the risks implicit in a wrong act.


Conclusion

      In this document,   prevalent  abortionist  arguments  were
examined and shown to be false.  It is hoped that this shows that
the anti-abortionist stance is the most humane  and  logical  one
to take.  If you have objections to my arguments which I have not
treated, or anything to add, I would like to hear from you.  This
document was written by:

                Chris Graham <chris@graham.UUCP>
                          P.O. Box 452
                       Don Mills, Ontario
                             Canada
                            M3C 2T2

               BITnet: lsuc!graham!chris@utorgpu
                 uucp: uunet!lsuc!graham!chris
               FidoNet: Chris Graham ON 1:223/258

                          Version 1.1
                           17-Mar-89

                                                                                                                   
