I don't expect to convert anyone here on the subject of birth control or abortion, but I do hope to convince you that those who stand in opposition are not just making stuff up and being hateful about it, but that they approach the debate firmly rooted in history, charity and a coherent moral philosophy.
The case against abortion is simple:
It takes a human life. Even the humble one-cell zygote (a human cell, human life! Hello!) has a complete unique human genome. We didn't know that back in 1973, but the Roe ruling did stipulate that if personhood could be established, the case would be closed. A fetus would be legally considered a human being entitled to constitutional protections:
If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. (Cornell LII - Roe v Wade, IX A)The majority also admitted in it's Roe v. Wade ruling that it did not know when human life begins, so it erred on the side of "who cares?"
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. (Cornell LII - Roe v Wade, IX B)So the pro-abortion argument rests upon the tenuous hope that a fetus is not human life, and it takes a narrow legalistic view instead of a broader prima facie and ontological one. It ignores legal precedents set in various state supreme court decisions as well as historical English jurisprudence, as cited in William Blackstone's Commentaries. This is the foundation of our law:
I. THE right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.
1. LIFE is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.So the anti-abortion position is not a recent invention; the pro-abortion one is. For those who spread the lie that abortion used to be ok; that Christians just recently started "making it up as they went along," I suggest you go read The Didache, a first century Christian document that specifically prohibits abortion.
An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate, made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. (Commentaries - Book 1, Chapter 1)
Defending contraception is much dicier...
...so I won't even try to make the argument. I will point out that everything the contraception foes predicted would happen if it became ubiquitous has indeed come to pass: Family breakup, out-of-wedlock births, venereal disease, dehumanization and sexual objectification of women and all the moral rot and societal decay that goes with it.
The simple fact that unwanted pregnancies have exploded in this era of the miraculous birth control pill should give everyone pause. It that doesn't do it for you, contemplate Europe's below-replacement fertility rate. A people that refuses to biologically propagate itself commits slow societal suicide.
I leave it to The Catholic Church to argue that artificial birth control is evil. I am merely pointing out that the moralists are not full of it. Their morality is grounded in reason, religious self-discipline, and a profound respect for the intrinsic value of each human being, which as Kant explained should always be treated as ends unto themselves and never merely as a means.
Then there's the more sinister side of abortion and contraception...
Jonathan Freedland explores the left's Eugenics Skeletons in the Closet. The original progressive aim was to abort and contracept the "inferiors" into extinction. Thankfully, the left has given up their sinister plans that included "lethal chambers" and have now progressed to merely enslaving and imprisoning the poor in fetid inner cities to more easily harvest their votes.
So although you may not agree with them, can you at least acknowledge that people who argue against artificial contraception and abortion do so from a firm historical and philosophical foundation?
...so I won't even try to make the argument. I will point out that everything the contraception foes predicted would happen if it became ubiquitous has indeed come to pass: Family breakup, out-of-wedlock births, venereal disease, dehumanization and sexual objectification of women and all the moral rot and societal decay that goes with it.
The simple fact that unwanted pregnancies have exploded in this era of the miraculous birth control pill should give everyone pause. It that doesn't do it for you, contemplate Europe's below-replacement fertility rate. A people that refuses to biologically propagate itself commits slow societal suicide.
I leave it to The Catholic Church to argue that artificial birth control is evil. I am merely pointing out that the moralists are not full of it. Their morality is grounded in reason, religious self-discipline, and a profound respect for the intrinsic value of each human being, which as Kant explained should always be treated as ends unto themselves and never merely as a means.
Then there's the more sinister side of abortion and contraception...
Jonathan Freedland explores the left's Eugenics Skeletons in the Closet. The original progressive aim was to abort and contracept the "inferiors" into extinction. Thankfully, the left has given up their sinister plans that included "lethal chambers" and have now progressed to merely enslaving and imprisoning the poor in fetid inner cities to more easily harvest their votes.
So although you may not agree with them, can you at least acknowledge that people who argue against artificial contraception and abortion do so from a firm historical and philosophical foundation?
