Bullock Texas State History Museum
On Abortion: Wants to Think for Himself but Pro-Choice Is Wrong Because He Says So and Everyone Should Think Like Him
RECEIVED Tue., April 6, 2004
Dear Editor,
Let's be honest. Both sides of the abortion debate bombard their opponents with emotive language to be dispensed whenever and wherever necessary in order to "prove their point." We should never forget Justice Kennedy's famous line: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Well that sounds warm and freedom-loving and tolerant, but I don't buy it. It assumes a relativistic stance on just about everything and doesn't solve the issue. In fact, it completely ignores the central issue, and here's why:
The argument that abortion is about a woman's rights presupposes the nonpersonhood of the fetus inside the woman. If and only if the fetus inside is proven to not be a human, then you have a case for women's rights. Otherwise, there is no reason to abort the child.
The "oak tree" argument – which purports to "disprove" the personhood of the fetus – is quite a bit more pathetic. It goes something like this: As an acorn is not a real oak, just a "potential one," such is the fetus, in that, it is not a real human, just a "potential one." The argument not only does not prove that a fetus is not human; it begins fallaciously with the supposition that an acorn is not an oak. The acorn is an oak, just an immature one. A fetus is a human, just an immature one.
The many other "arguments" that some on the pro-choice side advocate are not arguments at all. They are appeals to exception and a presupposed relativistic moral code. Exceptions do not make rules. We cannot logically infer from a handful of situations that a new code ought to be established protecting a method of abortion simply because it's "happened before."
I like to think for myself, and everyone else should, too – or at least those in charge of the whole abortion thing.
Let's be honest. Both sides of the abortion debate bombard their opponents with emotive language to be dispensed whenever and wherever necessary in order to "prove their point." We should never forget Justice Kennedy's famous line: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Well that sounds warm and freedom-loving and tolerant, but I don't buy it. It assumes a relativistic stance on just about everything and doesn't solve the issue. In fact, it completely ignores the central issue, and here's why:
The argument that abortion is about a woman's rights presupposes the nonpersonhood of the fetus inside the woman. If and only if the fetus inside is proven to not be a human, then you have a case for women's rights. Otherwise, there is no reason to abort the child.
The "oak tree" argument – which purports to "disprove" the personhood of the fetus – is quite a bit more pathetic. It goes something like this: As an acorn is not a real oak, just a "potential one," such is the fetus, in that, it is not a real human, just a "potential one." The argument not only does not prove that a fetus is not human; it begins fallaciously with the supposition that an acorn is not an oak. The acorn is an oak, just an immature one. A fetus is a human, just an immature one.
The many other "arguments" that some on the pro-choice side advocate are not arguments at all. They are appeals to exception and a presupposed relativistic moral code. Exceptions do not make rules. We cannot logically infer from a handful of situations that a new code ought to be established protecting a method of abortion simply because it's "happened before."
I like to think for myself, and everyone else should, too – or at least those in charge of the whole abortion thing.
John Wilson
College Station
College Station
