Legal, but is it moral?
Abortion is an
_____
ti - . ‘ , • ,• ■' ■" ’ ■
_
unjustifiable choice
In the time it takes you to read this
commentary, eight innocent lives will
be ended for the sake of parental conve
nience. Since 1973, fifteen million
lives have been thus terminated under
the aegis of our Supreme Court’s Roe
vs. Wade. The killing is legal, so long
as the baby still lives inside the mother,
the mother wants the baby killed, and a
doctor is willing to do the killing. Ad
vocates of this practice euphemistically
call themselves "pro-choice,” and they
shrink not to use formal fallacy in
defence thereof. They say:
The fetus is not a “meaningful”
human life: (argumentum ignoran
tium). They offer no proof that a fetus is
Commentary
not “meaningfully” human; instead
they argue that their contention cannot
be proven untrue. They must resort to
this fallacy because arguments to the
effect that a fetus is not “meaningful
ly” human, can also be used suc
cessfully to show that some aged, fee
ble, and handicapped people are not
“meaningfully” human.
Their second fallacy is to ignore
biological evidence — increasingly
sophisticated and revealing — that
shows, with no equivocation: human
life begins at conception. At recent
U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee
hearings devoted to the definition of
when life begins, seven of the first
eight witnesses agreed upon that point.
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a geneticist
preeminent, testified: ‘‘To accept the
fact that, after fertilization has taken
place, a new human has come into be
ing is no longer a matter of taste or of
opinion.,.It is plain experimental
evidence” (Life Cycle, Spring, 1982).
Fetus is to child, as child is to adult; all
are the continuum of human life; all are
meaningful.
I have the right to control my own
body: (illicit premise). 1 do not have the
right to commit suicide (my own body),
neither do I have the right to commit
fetuscide (not my own body). With the
exception of abortion, juridical prece
dent has consistently recognized that
rights are not autonomous, but related
in a hierarchy that is predicated upon
one fundamental right: the right to life.
Better aborted than unloved or poor:
(appeal to popular passion). This is
based upon the myopia that if parents
can’t love or provide, no one will. Of
course, we don’t allow parents to ter
minate their unloved six-month old. To
be unwanted or destitute is not
justification for killing; if you think so,
you erect again the horrific foundation
upon which were built the gas ovens of
forty years past.
Abortion is necessary because of
social injustice: (after this, therefore.
because of this). The polemics of
choice deny individual responsibility
in favor of collective and vicarious ac
countability. They would have us
believe that by sufficient distribution of
the blame, an immoral act will no
longer be an immoral act.
It’s an agonizing decision that must
be made by individuals: (begging the
question). Proponents of this fallacy
hold that the issue is beyond the pur
view of other concerned individuals,
and that a sufficiently distressing pro
cess will exculpate one from moral
responsibility. The "decision” is a se
cond chance: a self-flagellation, if you
please, that expiates poor judgment.
Make no mistake: termination of life is
not a decision to be made; rather, it is
refusal to accept responsibility for a
decision already made.
I’m not advocating abortion, I’m ad
vocating the right to choose: (cir
cumlocution). Such piffle is best
disposed of by analogy: “I’m not ad
vocating that men should rape women,
I’m simply advocating their right to
choose to rape women.”
It’s legal, therefore it’s right: The
prophets of choice speak of abortion as
"a constitutional right.” This is the
classic "ad verecundium” (appeal to
authority). To the contrary, the 14th
Amendment which was enacted to
overturn the Supreme Court’s Dred
Scott debacle and give "legal per
sonage” to black people says that no
state shall deprive any person of life,
liberty or property without due process
of law. Dred Scott and Roe vs. Wade
have only one difference: biological
age instead of skin color. Supreme
Courts are not immutable; be reminded
that ours once propped up the institu
tion of human chattel and disenfran
chisement. Only this time, to correct
their injustice, the justices will come to
acknowledge that they have committed
an atrocity, the likes of which would
make a Hitler blush.
Our country needs a constitutional
amendment guaranteeing the rights of
the unborn. Without it, the abortoriums
will continue our national holocaust:
one life every twenty-one seconds.
Rescue those being led away to
death;
hold back those staggering toward
slaughter.
If you say, “but we knew nothing
about this,”
does not he who weighs the heart
perceive it?
Does not he who guards your life
know it?
Will he not repay each person accor
ding to what he has done?
Proverbs 24:11-12, N.I.V.
Timothy Smith is a University
graduate student and spokesperson for
Eugene Right to Life.
letters
Poor reasoning
I find it odd that some people
criticize those against abortion
by using the argument: "People
shouldn’t bother fighting abor
tion when nuclear weapons
might blow us up anyway”.
This "fight the missiles — not
abortion” argument displays
completely flawed reasoning.
For one thing, if our country
continues aborting 1.5 million
children each year plus urging
other couples to only have two
or fewer children, then we’re
increasing the chances of
nuclear war. As our youth
population decreases, our abili
ty to maintain a conventional
army diminishes. This means
more (much more) reliance on
nuclear arms will result.
Another thing: since the Roe
vs. Wade ruling legalized abor
tion, over 15 million children in
America have had their lives
ended by abortion. How many
have been killed by nuclear
weapons since 1973? Those
against abortion are fighting a
practice which is taking life
every day, not just a potential
threat.
Teresa McNew
Elmira
Questions
For all you "pro-lifers” out
there, here’s some questions:
How can you compare an un
born fetus to a complete human
being? Why do you constantly
condemn “pro-choicers”? Why
not instead use your time to
figure out what we would do
with the annual 1.5 million new
babies and the resulting over
population, child abuse, and
poverty? If you’re so worried
about human lives, why not
work on the problems of the liv
ing? What about the starving in
Ethiopia, the orphans in Central
America, and the homeless and
hungry of the world (including
Oregon Daily Emerald
the USA)?
So, everyone has a right to
life? What are you doing to pro
tect the guys on death row?
What about the countless
animals slaughtered for "the
good of mankind"? Doesn’t that
piece of carcass you gnaw on at
dinner time have a right to life?
And please don’t tell me not to
compare an animal life to a
human life. A life is a life,
regardless of species. And
please keep religion out of it;
after all, the whole world isn’t
Christian.
Why don’t you spend your
time and money used on anti
abortion literature and clinic
bombings to educate and supp
ly people with birth control?
And when you find loving
homes for all the homeless
children of the world, let me
know. Only then might I con
sider abolishing abortion an act
of humanitarianism. So please,
instead of condemning the
world, do something to help it.
Debbie Michels
Elimination
One supposed justification
for abortion maintains that the
birth of a physically or mentally
abnormal child places an in
tolerable burden on the mother.
The assumption here is that the
value of human life is nothing
compared to the mother’s con
venience. Such an argument
clearly resembles that used to
justify the murder of non
Aryans in Hitler’s Third Reich.
Charles E. Rice, Professor of
Law at Notre Dame, wrote;
"The basic principle of the
Supreme Court abortion deci
sion is the principle that
underlay the Nazi extermina
tion of the Jews, that an inno
cent human being can be defin
ed as a non-person and killed if
his existence is inconvenient or
uncomfortable to others. .
It comes as no surprise,
therefore, that those who would
justify the killing of unwanted
children would take a similar
approach to the problem of the
aged and handicapped. John
Fletcher, an avid supporter of
abortion, wrote, “It is
ridiculous to give ethical ap
proval to the ending of
subhuman life by abortion
while refusing to give approval
to the ending of subhuman life
by positive euthanasia.”
Thus, abortion is but the first
step toward the total elimina
tion of all human life which
does not fit the standards of a
self-appointed few.
Ron Munion
Political Science
A lesson
Perhaps a lesson in human
reproduction is due for Tom
Viosky (“Quite Simple” ODE,
Jan. 23) and the group of “men”
I spoke with at the “Death
Week” table: A (sperm) plus B
(egg) equals fertilization.
That means, boys, it takes two
(a man and a woman) to create a
fetus. But where is the mention
of the male part in reproduction
when the topic of abortion
comes up? The focus is always
on the woman, as if she im
pregnates herself. She’s por
trayed as a heretic — a wanton
killer who rips the fetus from
her womb in an act of brutal
murder.
And where is the man?
(Perhaps writing letters to the
Emerald or standing around the
EMU discussing new ways to
control women’s lives.)
If anti-abortionists want to
condemn women as
“murderers,” they need to look
a bit further for the “ac
complices.” To paraphrase a
speaker I once heard: “If abor
tion is murder, why isn’t sex a
felony?”
Cheri Snell
Leisure Studies and Services
Involved
“I think women should have ,
the right to decide (what con
cerns) their lives, and control
over their bodies is control over
their lives. We don’t advocate
abortion, we advocate the right
to have an abortion,” said a Na
tional Abortion Rights Action
League (NARAL) representative
in a Jan. 23 Emerald article by
Julie Shippen.
The NARAL propels the
“pro-choice” group and op
poses the “pro-life” group and
the anti-abortionists. These peo
ple stir active controversy at the
University and nationally.
We are fortunate enough to
legally push or protest deci
sions on issues that we feel will
affect or have affected our lives.
Not one of us who is actively or
passively concerned about an
issue could honestly advocate a
measure forbidding our rights.
Furthermore, an important
decision made without our be
ing able to voice, object to,
and/or change that opinion
would be considered extremely
unfair! Our freedom of choice is
valuable.
I am a product of someone
who was pro-choice 21 years
ago — pro-choice enough to
give me the opportunity to
choose for myself. Many people
are like me, and I am glad my
biological mother did not make
the choice of abortion for me.
She went through with her
pregnancy and put me up for
adoption. I am fortunate my
“mother” did not decide to end
what was started before I had
the chance to begin my life and
decide on my own.
So, I agree with those suppor
ting “pro-choice”: We should
not advocate any measure exer
cising control over someone’s
life. Everyone should be given
the opportunity to eventually
decide what to do with his or
her own life!
Kim Fuller
A directly involved woman
Equal acts?
Regarding Lori Parkman’s let
ter (ODE, Jan. 22):
I can readily identify with
your statements. It is exceeding
ly hypocritical to defend the
right to legally abort (kill) inno
cent children in the womb
while condemning others for
bombing buildings.
Like wow Lori, how far will
those crazy folks at the Emerald
go?
After all, bombing buildings
and possibly killing innocent
adults is, without a doubt,
damned comparable to an in
dividual’s right to make a
(hopefully) intelligent decision
concerning a pregnancy’s prac
ticality and/feasibility.
Someone who throws a bomb
or sets fire to a building is cer
tainly no more a criminal than
the woman who legally decides
not to bring a child into the
world due to environmental,
financial, or nurturant factors.
A great deal of agonizing must
surely be done on both sides; to
throw or not to throw the bomb?
To have or not have the child?
Tough decisions both, to be
sure.
I’m glad you're so laid back
and wouldn’t dream of impos
ing your values and viewpoints
on others. But I think you
would feel differently if your
place of employment were
bombed, possibly killing or
maiming people you know, or if
you were faced with the reality
of a pregnancy you couldn’t
handle.
Abortion may not be the
answer, but bombing clinics
doesn’t even come close. And
treating them as equal acts
would, at its best, be absurd.
Tim Chauran
Eugene
Page 3