Replies

The author odes a good job of refuting some rather poor arguments in favor of abortion, with one exception. Cuthbertson seems to believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, a clear and easy-to-define moment in the child’s development.

By any scientific criteria you can name, a complete human life is formed at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. The creature formed is alive - growing, maturing and replacing its own dying cells. It is human - already unique from any other human who has ever existed, of the species homo sapiens sapiens, with 46 human chromosomes, and can only develop into an adult human as opposed to any other creature.

Of course, this can also be said of a comatose patient on a respirator, with only brain-stem activity. Most find it reasonable at some point for physicians to cease the use of extraordinary levels of life-support.

I realize that it will be pointed out that the child in the womb has the opportunity to develop into a fully functioning individual, but such an argument depends upon the individuality of the child to begin with. Of course the new child in the womb is biologically distinct from any other animal or human for that matter, but can it really be said to have acquired true “individuality” moments after conception. Consider the phenomena of twinning. This implies that individuality on the level that most people understand it has not yet occurred.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that individuality has been seated in the child. The author places the right of the child to live among rights such as liberty and property. Those last two rights are those that the child wouldn’t really be able to enjoy anyway. No child can legally own property, and with curfews and other restrictions unique to children they can’t really be said to enjoy liberty in the same way that an adult does. Why shouldn’t life, like these other two rights, be a privilege based upon the child’s development?

This is not to give a free pass to all who desire an abortion up until the moment of birth. Rather, reasonable yet clear lines can be drawn. Perhaps the moment at which the child is capable of viability outside the womb would be an appropriate time to bestow upon him or her the privileges associated with the right to life.

You seem to base your main argument against "life begins at conception" upon a rather undefined concept of "individuality", which I take to have something to do with personality, self-sufficiency, and the capability to "enjoy" liberty and property ownership...

"Those last two rights are those that the child wouldn’t really be able to enjoy anyway. No child can legally own property, and with curfews and other restrictions unique to children they can’t really be said to enjoy liberty in the same way that an adult does. Why shouldn’t life, like these other two rights, be a privilege based upon the child’s development?"

Of course the unborn child won't be enjoy them, if you abort him/her. Your concept of life as a "privilege" to be earned implies that someone else - the expectant mother, the courts, some federal agency, etc. - gets to grant or withhold the "priviledge" of life that priviledge based upon some arbitrary decision that "he/she wouldn't have enjoyed life anyway."

Abortion isn't about where you draw the line or murder - at conception, implantation, first second or third trimester, or beyond - it's about granting some members of the human race the ability to fatally decide whether other's lives are worth living at all. How is that different from murder?

Individuality is not a necessary condition for personhood. Otherwise, all co-joined twins wouldn't be persons.

It's not proper to administer poison to kill a comatose patient, under current law. There is a difference between ceasing the use of extraordinary medical methods and acting to kill.

It is not proper to decide that some humans are not human enough to be protected from intentional acts designed to kill them. It's especially not proper to say "we don't know, so lets kill them." If there is doubt, government should protect them from being killed.

Perhaps the moment at which the child is capable of viability outside the womb would be an appropriate time to bestow upon him or her the privileges associated with the right to life.

I see. So the stroke patient, or the one with Alzheimer's, doesn't get fed, since they are not able to raise a spoon to their mouths, and this, in your thinking, is an extraordinary means of life support?

Nancy feeding former President Ronald Reagan birthday cake.

The Right to Life is not a "privilege." It is a RIGHT. The Right to Life is not "bestowed" by men, but by Nature and by Nature's God. The power of men is only to support that life or to annihilate it. That is the choice we men are given by Nature and by Nature's God. But do not think for an instant that such choice is morally ambivalent or without natural consequences.

I will say what Mother Theresa said - if you don't want to feed the baby, or, as in my example, the patient, give him or her to me. I will feed them, house them, clothe them, and in any way I can support their life and their natural right to it.

The conundrum is not WHEN rights are endowed to each individual life, but that a baby in the mother's womb holds his or her rights completely at the mercy of the mother. Legalized abortion gives free reign to merciless mothers, whose next date or marriage proposal or business deal outweighs her natural bond with her child. When society, government, or any individual perpetuates the severing of that bond through legally sanctioned and majority-approved abortion, they are accomplices to murder. (Warning: don't take that link if you don't have the stomach for murder.)