An Argument Against Abortion

Abortion in America is a controversial issue in which both

sides have valid arguments at face value. The pro-choice side has many

arguments to support it belief in keeping abortion legal. Many of these are

faulty, and argue points irrelevant to the issue as I will attempt to

illustrate, thereby eliminating the main pro-choice arguments.

The pro-life position has somewhat different ideas. The most

popular of these is: The unborn entity is fully human from the moment of

conception. Abortion results in the intentional death of the unborn entity.

Therefore, abortion can be defined the intentional killing of a human being.

This killing is in most cases unjustified, since the unborn human being has a

full right to life. If, however, there is a high probability that a woman's

pregnancy will result in her death (such as tubal pregnancy, for example),

then abortion is justified. For it is a greater good that one human should

live (the mother) rather than two die (the mother and her child). Or, in

such cases the intent is not to kill the unborn but to save the life of the

mother. With the exception of such cases, abortion is an act in which an

innocent human being is intentionally killed; therefore, abortion should be

made illegal, as are all other such acts of killing.

One argument made by people in favor of abortion is an

appeal to pity. When one fallaciously argues by appealing to pity, one is

arguing that certain actions should be permitted or tolerated out of pity for

those performing them when in fact the basis for showing them pity is not a

legitimate basis for the action. For example, a woman who argues that she

should not receive a parking ticket because her child was crying and she took

her child to a candy store to cheer her up is appealing to pity. The

following abortion rights arguments are examples.

Anyone who goes to pro-choice demonstrations in the United

States will see on pro-choice buttons a drawing of a coat hanger. This is the

symbol of the pro-choice movement representing the many women who were harmed

or killed because they either performed illegal abortions on themselves

(i.e., the surgery was performed with a "coat hanger") or went to physicians.

That means, if abortion is made illegal, then women will once again be

h...

... middle of paper ...

...asy economic

access to such "professionals."

In the abortion debate the question of whether abortion entails the death of

a being who is fully human must be answered before the question of fairness

is even asked. That means, since equal opportunity to eliminate an innocent

human being is rarely a moral good, the question of whether it is fair that

rich people will have access to abortion if it becomes illegal must be

answered after the question of whether abortion in fact is not the killing of

an innocent human life is answered. This is like saying the benefits of the

wealthy are virtues simply because the poor are denied them. Sounds like bs

to me.

Although the abortion argument will probably go on forever,

eliminating faulty arguments will help people reach a reasonable decision on

the issue. When the pro-choice side argues such points as the ones above, it

tricks many people by playing on such things as peoples sympathy and

compassion wrongly. If each side was represented fairly, it is likely people

would become in favor of a ban on abortion when facts are the issue instead

of a false play to people's emotion.