7. It avoids many legal problems. If we write into the Constitution that a fertilized cell is a "person," we would have no end of difficulties: 8. Must we record conception dates? Must we issue conception certificates? Must we have police protection? Must we investigate miscarriage as possible murder? Must we issue fetus passports? or, as someone facetiously put it, must we now buy two tickets to the ball game? It recognizes the present rights of real people, as against the future rights of potential people. This is most clearly shown in the case where the fetus is known to be defective. Why should the lives of the woman, of others in the family, and of other concerned people be sacrificed for a potential person --especially if that new person will himself have no real opportunity for a successful life? 9. It respects the Law of Nature. From natural causes, mutations are going on all the time. Almost all of these are defective changes, and must be "weeded out" if the species is to survive. But Nature does this "weeding out" at an early stage: mostly in the sex-cells (ova and spermatozoa); Partly in the gametes (by failure to implant); partly in the embryo stage (death from lethal defects), but very little after the twelfth week. 10. It recognizes the changing level of value in the new life. At the The Right-to-Life people have a lot of arguments- here are OUR ANSWERS Their Argument Our Answer We are also pro-life: pro the woman's life and pro quality of life. It is opies get to protect life before it urious how emotionally charged some it born but don't seem to give a tinker's dam what happens to it afterward. They appear not to care, whether it is deformed, doomed to a short and miserable life by congenital disease, whether it will be faced with neglect, hatred, battering or even starvation. If the law FORCES abortion, yes. But the Supreme Court decision does not; indeed, it does just the OPPOSITE. It forces neither abortion nor pregnancy but leaves it for the woman and her doctor to decide. Any sequence like this can be imagined. How about the danger of tea--it may lead to coffee, then to tobacco, then alcohol, then LSD, then opium! More seriously, this is comparing the Again, experience refutes this argument. The "On Demand," "Free and Easy," -? at a cost of from $150 to $400 plus time, trouble and inconvenience! Surely this is penalty enough. Unfair, too, for it is paid only by the woman. Of course, because it is still earlier in the life cycle. But we still do not have the perfect contraceptive. Nor are contraceptives available to all, nor low in cost, nor safe in all cases. 7. Abortions may result in severe and lasting psychological damage, regret, remorse or guilt. 8. The operation is cruel to the new life; it "cries" before it dies. 9. Physicians are bound to preserve life, not to destroy it. 10. A genius like Beethoven might never have been born--and look at my fifth...(or fifteenth?) 11. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 12. There won't be enough facilities and personnel to serve the mass of women who will seek abortion. 13. Nurses and others will not be willing to take part in this procedure. For clandestine, illegal abortion, this may be true, but not when it is legally sanctioned and widely accepted. Many women have mental problems after childbirth, but this is virtually unknown after legal abortion, especially if suitable counselling is available. This can be true only of late abortions 57-782 - 76-27 This argument shows most clearly that you cannot see the difference between destroying a cell and destroying a human being. It is a moral question, and the moral law must recognize different value levels. It must recognize that life does not come from death; it comes from life in a continuous flow. But in this flow it passes through many stages. When it is in the form of information-bearing cells, it becomes a flood. Only a few of the cells in this flood can be preserved. A selection must take place, and after that selection, the few must increase in value until they reach full human status. If you are so concerned about "murder," why are you not obsessed with hatred of war, of crime, of highway deaths, and of lethal disease? But if you are really concerned about suffering and death, why do you not worry about the suffering that comes from forced pregnancy? About the woman whose life may be ruined? About the infant doomed to early and terrible death? Our objective is to be humane, and this is surely a part of moral law. |