Responses to “A New Pro-Abortion Argument”

7. July 2008 by Seth.

There are many responses we could give to the “acquired rights” argument in favor of legalized abortion mentioned in the previous post.

For example, if the right to life were a right which is to be acquired, there must be some moment of grandeur when this great honor is bestowed upon the individual.  While it is true that one cannot legally drive until one has passed the test, there is indeed a moment at the BMV when one is handed the long-desired driver’s license.

Similarly, when a teenager turns 18, she may apply for voting privileges and then—and only then—will she receive the voting card in the mail declaring her entry into the society of the electorate.

This could be extrapolated to the consumption of alcohol, to the portion of our society bearing the title of Bachelor of Arts, to the entrance of one into an elite club.  Yes, there is a period of learning and testing followed by admittance into the club.

However, there is a fundamental difference between these events and that of personhood.  The former is an issue of qualification and of privileges being added to one’s nature.  The second is a question of one’s very essence.  For example, children are born all across the world.  They are all human beings.  But, only a portion of them hold the title of Americans.  There are qualifications which must be met for them to hold this privilege.  Yet, regardless of their nationality, all babies are by definition human beings.

There cannot be a magical moment when one is given the title of personhood because that would mean one would actually change one’s own character.  Yes, a boy will become a man as he grows and have new responsibilities and privileges due to this.  But, does that mean in his boyhood he was not a male?  To suggest such would be nonsense.  He is now a more mature male, but the definition of his nature has not changed.

We may have a range of persons who are more and less mature in this world.  But we do not have a range of persons and non-persons in the human race.

A man cannot change his own essence.

Furthermore, we can know objectively whether or not a person may drive.  Thus, we must also be able to know objectively whether or not a person has the right to life.  Can the “acquired rights” group provide evidence of an objective moment at which one is granted the right of personhood?

No, they cannot.  This would mean there would actually be humans walking around our globe who are not persons, who have not yet been granted this privilege.  Have you ever met a human being who is not a person?  What is that like?  How does the individual behave?

Every human being—from the smallest zygote to the most elderly man—is by his nature a person.

Some argue that this is a question of gained respect.  The fetus has not gained the respect of her common man in the same way a Senator has.  Thus, we cannot be expected to honor the plea to life of the fetus, whereas we are obligated to do so for the Senator.

Imagine a society built upon this system.  Personhood and the right to life would exist on a sliding scale.  You may be a person and have the right to live, but there will always be someone who has garnered more respect and therefore has more of a right to life than you.  Thus, there is always someone who would be justified in killing you by virtue of the fact that he has more of a right to life than you.  If he were in need of a heart transplant and you were the only one with a viable organ, he would not only be justified in killing you to take your heart for himself, he would be doing the morally upright thing—by honoring the right to life of which he has more than you.

If personhood and the right to life were to exist on a sliding scale, this would create a society of higher and lower classes of persons, the former feeding upon the lower.

If, however, personhood were something one either has or does not have, then there must be some objective way to determine whether or not one has it.  If one argues that this is an “acquired right” then he must also provide objective evidence of the great moment when one receives this right.  However, all efforts to do so will end in vain because personhood is not an added privilege, it is the definition of what a human being is.

The argument that the right to life is an “acquired right” may sound like a new argument.  However, it is indeed simply a different facet of the old debate to determine the personhood of the preborn child.

There is indeed an objective way to determine whether or not an individual is a person.  And, the test is quite simple.  If the individual is human—regardless of size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency—the individual is a person.

And, that person has the right to life.

Posted in Social, Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »