From time to time, when I haven't been able to read my daily book and comment on it, I'll comment on various other things. Now, I know that some of the readers I have - those that comment and those that I know read it but do not comment - will be alienated by what I'm about to say, but you are welcome to share your disagreement, of course. 

Today's Issue: Abortion. 

I was involved in a pretty heated debate on a political forum I frequent, and I would like to share a few of the pro-choice arguments I was introduced to, as well as my responses to them. Granted, there are many more than what I'll be addressing, but those are typically asinine and unworthy of my time. Arguments like "over population" and "what about hunting" and "if you eat meat, you support animal murder" and things like that. Stupid. 

Argument: A fetus is not a human being!

Response: Why are you assigning worth to different stages of human development? You see, human life is a continuum. Basically, there are four stages of biological human development: 1).Prenatal; 2). Child; 3). Adolescence; 4). Adult.  Explain to me why the last three are human but the first is not? A fetus has human DNA and will develop into a child, then an adolescent, then an adult. It is, by definition, human. The half-assed excuse, "Well, we need to decide when life begins before we can judge the morality of abortion" is a cop-out. Human life begins at conception - biologically. 

If you want to start assigning worth to different stages of psychological development, then I feel bad for the mentally handicapped. 

Argument: Why should a woman give birth to an unwanted child?

Response: No child is "unwanted." In fact, according to the US government, there are an estimated 600,000 couples looking to adopt children. Note, I said "couples." In most states, a couple means marriage.  That 600,000 could be increased significantly if homosexuals were allowed to adopt, but because they can't marry, they are counted as being on the list. (Personally, I see nothing wrong with homosexuals adopting children.)

But even if a child were "unwanted," how does that justify murder? That logic is the same as saying that if a mother or father leaves their newborn in a dumpster, it would be O.K. to kill that child, seeing as though he or she is "unwanted"? 

Argument: How can you tell a woman what to do with her body?

Response: The fetus is a separate entity with a distinct genetic makeup. It is not PART of the female body. It is certainly connected to the female body and draws nutrients from it, but it's not PART of the female body. It is by God or Nature - depending on your persuasion - that the female body no longer belongs solely to the female during pregnancy. Furthermore, the idea of personal autonomy is not absolute. There are many things the law says you cannot do with your body. You cannot, in most places in the United States, prostitute or inject yourself with heroin, for example. 

Argument: What about rape?

Response: This is one of those arguments which borders on ridiculous, but I'll answer it. Is an abortion going to un-rape you? That may sound cruel, but think about it. Why does the child deserve the death penalty for the crimes of his or her father? 

Plus, the question presupposes that an abortion is going to magically make everything better for the woman. A study done on rape victims who became pregnant showed that the 70% who chose to give birth to their child rather than have an abortion recovered more rapidily.

Lastly, rape which results in pregnancy is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, it occurs less than 1% of the time. Does that seem like a subtle reason to keep abortion, all abortions, legal? NO! 

This argument is clearly an emotional screen set up to distract one from the real issue. 

Argument: What if the baby will be born with a horrible disease?

Response: I see. So, you think you have the right to judge another persons' quality of life, huh? And should that be the new American principle: exterminating the infirm, like Hitler did in Nazi, Germany? 

Argument: Men shouldn't have a say in it.

Response: Abortion is not a male issue or a female issue, it's a human issue. 

Argument: What about back-alley abortions? 

Response: Marry Ann Warren, a pro-choice philosopher, said, "...the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it." 

And back-alley abortions weren't as common or as "back-alley" as people think. But I think Marry Ann Warren's words are a sufficent response, and Mrs. Warren is pro-choice. 

Any thoughts?