Arguing Abortion

**this is my research paper i worked on all semmester in English Comp 2. let me know what you think!***

It is sad to see a teenage girl burdened to become a parent of a child when she is just a child herself, but can that fact alone really justify abortion? Scientist, scholars, and political figures argue and debate with little relief over the topic of abortion. Should a woman really have the authority to destroy the child growing within her? Is the child really a child? Is a fetus merely part of the woman’s body? These are all questions that have been asked in previous years and are still being researched today despite the earlier findings. Realizing the valid debates and sad truths of the pro-abortion stance, this paper is designed to show the advancements of the pro-life stance to now be able to validly argue these difficult arguments. Can abortion really be rationally justified?
Before the argumentation can being, the two different sides of abortion need to be defined. The two different sides are pro-life and pro-choice. Webster, said to be America's most popular language-related reference work, defines pro-life as simply- “opposed to abortion” (“Pro-life”). This definition sums up the pro-life side very accurately. The pro-life activist simply argues that abortion is wrong. In most cases it does seem as though the pro-life side is small and weak. Although many are against abortion, it is very hard to find someone who can readily argue the issue with logic and not emotion. In many debates, the pro-life side loses because it uses personal beliefs with little evidence to back their claim up or they include religious beliefs which are always dismissed because not all agree with that person’s religion. Since it is hard to find people that can logically debate abortion, the pro-life side seems very weak. The opposition, pro-choice, is defined by Webster as- ‘favoring the legalization of abortion” (“Pro-choice”). The pro-choice advocate argues that there is nothing wrong with abortion. In short, this side agrees with abortion whole-heartedly.
Now that the two sides have been seen, the argumentation can begin. Beginning the debate is the biggest abortion argument which is considered in most circles a scientific based argument. It is the idea of life beginning at conception or the idea of the fetus not being human. The pro-choice side often concludes that the child is not human but rarely debates that life does not begin at conception- though some still attest to that belief. Pro-abortion website Choice Matters put out an article ten years ago to outline the pros and cons of abortion arguments. They claim in a section of that article that the idea of life beginning at conception is a religiously based idea. John Ankerberg, host of many abortion debates, and Weldon, one-time abortion advocate, point out that the issue of life beginning at conception is a scientifically proven fact (12). They even give scientist testimonies that this ideal is true (12). These two men also show the advancements in science and technology in the areas of fetology and ultra-sounds. These tools can be used to prove that the so-called blob is more than that because each and every stage of development can be seen (13-15). Dr. J. C. Willke, a physician, author, lecturer, and an expert on human sexuality, with his wife authored on a book called Handbook on Abortion, at one time a best seller. They point out the idea that the only difference from an adult human being and the fetus are nutrition and oxygen. He says, “The tiny human you once were, developed into the adult you now are, but you were there totally at conception. All you needed to become the adult you are was nutrition, oxygen, and time.” These things are supplied differently in these two stages and that is the only difference (11). There are many different ways to debate this idea, but Ankerberg and Weldon give an amazing argument. They summarize it in three steps- it is alive, it has an unique human nature, and at any stage of development it is most accurately described as an actual person with great potential (98-99). Lastly, many argue that the child cannot be human because it lacks brain-waves and consciousness. Despite the scientific proof of the existence of some of these accusations, Ankerberg and Welson make a statement saying- “there are many times when people exist without consciousness, without brain-waves, without human heartbeat, etc., and yet no one would argue that at any time they are not human” (19). They also say, “No human being is more ‘human’ than the other” (97). In the end, this argument is proven invalid because the fetus is proven to be human. Not only do the pro-choice use the scientific approach and debate the fetus’ humanity, but they also use the idea that the unborn can be killed just because they are not independent beings or viable. Viability is a very common argument. Prometheus Institute, an organization seeking to educate the younger generation, alludes to this opinion of viability in an editorial supporting abortion - “The question isn’t where life begins, but where independent life begins (“Abortion:”). The pro-choice side states that if the child is not viable- he is dependent on the mother’s care- then he can be aborted without question. There are several ways the pro-life movement has found to argue this ideal. Dr. and Mrs. Willke argue that viability is not a valid argument because even a baby outside the mother’s womb is dependent on care (23). Some will fall to this argument because they believe that once the baby is outside the womb it is murder, but some will not fall to this idea because they believe that infanticide is also acceptable and should be legalized as well as abortion. The Willke’s also show the fact that even a ten day old baby in the womb can assert his independence by stopping the mother’s menstrual cycle (10). Thus viability is not a valid argument.
Not only do the pro-choice advocates argue humanity and viability, but they also argue that the fetus is just an extension of the mother’s body. Thus begins the legal side of the abortion debate. In this sense of the fetus merely being an extension of the mother, it is argued that the mother then has the right over her own body. Pro-abortionist say, “The fetus is totally dependent on the body of the woman for its life support and is physically attached to her by the placenta and umbilicus. The health of the fetus is directly related to the health of the pregnant woman. Only at birth are they separate ” (“Legal Abortion”). This ideal is disturbed by the fact that the child is truly human. Kent Kelly, pastor and founder of “Churches for Life and Liberty,” makes this observation based on that very premise- “Any woman has the right to have sex. Any woman has the right to refrain from sexual activity. However, once conception has occurred, the rights of another human being are involved” (103). Furthermore, Ankerberg and Weldon dedicate a whole chapter in their book to arguing this ideal of the fetus being part of the mother. They provide five reasons that the child is not just part of the mother’s body- the mother and child can have two separate blood types, the baby can be dead while in the womb, it is recognized as a foreign body requiring the protection from the placenta, the child could be male, and the child has its own organs (21-23). Therefore, the argument of the fetus just being part of the mother is also proven invalid.
The idea that the fetus is just part of the mother has to do with women’s rights. The same idea can be seen with this next argument- rape and incest. Rape and incest are very common arguments from the pro-abortion stance, and abortion is often justified in these two ideals (Beckwith 169). Pro-choice activists will say, “Forcing a woman to bear a rapist’s child is further torture of the victim of a heinous crime” (“Legal Abortion”). Ignoring the fact that these two events are substantially rare in most cases, Ankerberg and Weldon give this idea- “no one will deny that [the mother] has been the victim of a cruel violence of another. But does this give her the right to subject the innocent life growing within her to a similar violence?” (117). Most people would not equate these two violent acts. In that case Francis J. Beckwith, a lecturer of philosophy at the University of Nevada with a PhD in Philosophy from Fordham University, argues this to summarize the end of this conclusion- “the unborn is not an aggressor when its presence does not endanger the mother’s life.” He argues this on the basis that the mother’s life is the only idea where abortion is agreeable (69). Therefore, rape and incest are not valid arguments for abortion.
Not only does the pro-choice side use science and legal issues to support their argument, but they also use an emotional tactic. This tactic is seen in the pro-choice assumption that abortion is unstoppable and if is made illegal more women will die because of “illegal” abortions (Beckwith 168). Pro-abortionists claim that fighting the legalization of abortion and sending women back to have “back-alley” abortions is hypocritical because pro-lifers are supposedly for life but they are causing more women to die with illegal abortions (“Legal Abortion”). What most people do not understand is that women do die from legal abortions. Dr. J.C. Willke with his background in medicine he says that many of these are not recorded because the death came from an infection during the abortion procedure and was not noticed or that the person’s family does not wish it to be known that the deceased had the abortion (79). This argument can be surmised as invalid since it is proven that either way- legal or illegal- women will die.
Not only do the pro-choice side attempt to use scientific, legal, and emotional means to prove their points, but they also attack the pro-life side personally. The next set of arguments from the pro-choice side has to do with the idea that pro-lifers are just pushing their views on others. The idea of the pro-choice movement is to say that to be against abortion is a religious issue and to argue it is to push others to believe the same. Pro-abortionists say that if the pro-life person does not agree with abortion then they should just not have one and leave everyone else alone (Beckwith 169-170). On the idea that abortion is just a religious issue, Ankerberg and Weldon say, “Many people mistakenly feel that abortion is a ‘religious’ issue. But it is not. It is a scientific issue, and specifically, a biological issue” (5). They claim this on the idea that in their research they have concluded that most scientists have studied that to say that life begins at conception is a proven scientific fact and not a religious implication (5). Another argument on this ideal is given by Beckwith. He argues that people from both sides of the issue equate their claims on their religious views- not just pro-life. He goes so far as to say that there are even people on both sides of the issue that do not equate their views with religious ideals (80). The same idea is shown with the imposing views issue. Both sides are imposing their views. If the pro-choice person argues back with the pro-life person, then he is forcing his views on him (82). This set of arguments is known as an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem simply means that this very argument is attacking the person who is arguing rather than the argument itself which makes it an invalid claim.
After looking at each of these arguments and seeing each one debunked it is hard to see how this killing of an innocent child can be validly argued. It is depressing to see a teenage girl becoming a mother although still a child, but how much more depressing is the thought of an innocent baby being killed. Not only is it depressing that a child is killed but the women are constantly struggling with the impacts of abortion. Renowned author, Don Baker said, “For every unborn child that dies, there is a mother who suffers varying degrees of physical, emotional, or spiritual pain” (95). Bill O’Reilly, well-known political commentator for Fox News, conducted an interview of a Miss Kelly. This young girl had an abortion and is speaking out in this interview about the effects of her choice. She says when she looks back on what she did she feels disgusted. She admits to suffering post-traumatic stress, low self-esteem, promiscuity, drug usage, and eating disorders (Kelly Intv.). The sad truth here that not only was a poor innocent child cruelly murdered but a mother is now suffering the fatal affects of her decision. Baker speaks out on this sad truth in his book, Beyond Choice, based on a true story. He writes, “Debbie continues to remember…as hard as she tries to forget…she continues to remember” (93). Despite the pro-choice’s attempt to justify abortion, abortion cannot be justified rationally.

Works Cited
“Abortion: A Logical Pro-choice Argument, Amazing!” Editorial. Prometheus Institute, 2 January 2008. Web. 17 February 2010
Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon. When Does Life Begin? Brentwood: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989. Print.
Baker, Don. Beyond Choice: The Abortion Story No One is Telling. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1985. Print.
Beckwith, Francis J. Politically Correct Death. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993. Print.
Kelly, Kent. Abortion: The American Holocaust. Southern Pines: Calvary Press, 1981. Print.
Kelly. “Dr. Tiller Abortion Patient Speaks Out.” Interview by Bill O’Reilly. FOXNews.com. The O’Reilly Factor, 13 Dec. 2006. Web. Feb. 2010.
“Legal Abortion: Arguments Pro and Con.” Choice Matters. 2000. Web. 18 April 2010.
“Pro-choice.” Def. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. 1975. Web. 17 Feb. 2010.
“Pro-life.” Def. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. 1971. Web. 17 Feb. 2010.
Willke, Dr., and Mrs. J.C. Handbook on Abortion. Cincinnati: Hayes, 1979. Print.