Some commentators have come to a different conclusion because they believe the first verses only refer to a case of accidental miscarriage. Since only a fine is levied, they argue that an unborn baby is merely potential life and does not carry the same legal status as a baby that has been born.
There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, the normal Hebrew word for miscarry is not used in this passage cf. Most commentators now believe that the action described in verse 22 is a premature birth not an accidental miscarriage. Second, even if the verses do describe a miscarriage, the passage cannot be used to justify abortion.
The injury was accidental, not intentional as abortion would be. Also, the action was a criminal offense and punishable by law. Thus far in our discussion we have looked at biblical arguments against abortion.
Are there other arguments we can use? The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother.
A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes sometimes 47 chromosomes. Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.
Another set of medical arguments against abortion surround the definition of life and death. If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb.
If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed. Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: A flat EEG electroencephalograph is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.
Opponents to abortion also raise the controversial issue of fetal pain. Does the fetus feel pain during abortion? The evidence seems fairly clear and consistent.
Consider this statement made in a British medical journal: She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand.
He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Obviously, other medical criteria could be used. For example, the developing fetus has a unique set of fingerprints as well as genetic patterns that make it unique. We can discern eyes, ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth.
Our visual senses tell us this is a baby growing and maturing. This is not a piece of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the womb. The point is simple. Medical science leads to a pro-life perspective rather than a pro-choice perspective. If medical science can be used at all to draw a line, the clearest line is at the moment of conception.
Medical arguments provide a strong case against abortion and for life. The best legal argument against abortion can be seen in the case of Roe v. It violated standard legal reasoning. The Supreme Court decided not to decide when life begins and then turned around and overturned the laws of 50 different states. Although the sentences sounded both innocuous and unpretentious, they were neither. It overturned state laws that protected the unborn and has resulted in over 30 million abortions roughly the population of Canada in the United States.
The decision also seems unpretentious by acknowledging that it did not know when life begins. A crucial role of government is to protect life. Government cannot remove a segment of the human population from its protection without adequate justification. The burden of proof should lie with the life-taker, and the benefit of the doubt should be with the life-saver.
The burden of proof in law is on the prosecution. The benefit of doubt is with the defense. This is also known as a presumption of innocence. The defendant is assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Again the burden of proof is on the entity that would take away life or liberty. The benefit of the doubt lies with the defense. The Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not know when life begins and then violated the very spirit of this legal principle by acting as if it just proved that no life existed in the womb.
Even more curious was the fact that to do so, it had to ignore the religious community and international community on the subject of the unborn. Had the religious community really failed to reach a consensus? Although there were some intramural disagreements, certainly the weight of evidence indicated that a Western culture founded on Judeo-Christian values held abortion to be morally wrong.
People with widely divergent theological perspectives Jewish, Catholic, evangelical and fundamental Protestants shared a common agreement about the humanity of the unborn. The same could be said about the international legal community. The unborn were protected by various international documents like the Declaration of Geneva and the U. Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
Just as there are solid medical arguments against abortion, so also there are legal arguments against abortion. Wade was a bad decision that needs to be overturned.
A third set of arguments against abortion would be philosophical arguments. A key philosophical question is where do you draw the line? Put another way, when does a human being become a person? Wade separated personhood from humanity. In other words, the judges argued that a developing fetus was a human i. Since only persons are given 14th Amendment protection under the Constitution, the Court argued that abortion could be legal at certain times.
This left to doctors, parents, or even other judges the responsibility of arbitrarily deciding when personhood should be awarded to human beings. Once the Court allowed people to start drawing lines, some drew them in unexpected ways and effectively opened the door for infanticide and euthanasia.
In the past, such criteria as implantation or quickening had been suggested. The Court chose the idea of viability and allowed for the possibility that states could outlaw abortions performed after a child was viable.
But viability was an arbitrary criterion, and there was no biological reason why the line had to be drawn near the early stages of development. The line, for example, could be drawn much later. Ethicist Paul Ramsey frequently warned that any argument for abortion could logically be also used as an argument for infanticide.
As if to illustrate this, Dr. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, demonstrated that he was less concerned about the ethics of such logical extensions and proposed a more radical definition of personhood. Other line-drawers have suggested a cultural criterion for personhood.
If a person decides to have sex, whether it is done with protection or not, the result is her responsibility and she must be willing to deal with the consequences. One such consequence is getting pregnant. When a woman gets pregnant, it is usually a result of her own choices, even if the pregnancy is unwanted or unplanned. The most obvious reason why I think that abortion is immoral is because it is the intentional killing of a human being.
It is a well-known fact that life begins at the moment of conception. If it is murder to kill a human being in any stage of life, then abortion, the murder of the fetus, is obviously wrong, because murder is one of the ethical absolutes.
When we perform an abortion, we take the life of an innocent child. We deny the unborn child its right to live and experience the world.
No one has thee right to take the life of another person, even an unborn child. Furthermore, abortion denies the mother the joy and opportunity to raise the baby, and in the long run, usually ends up hurting the mother as the emotional effects become worse and worse.
For and Against Abortion There are many topics that most people are for and against which is I guess a normal reaction to some things. One of the most controversial topics would be abortion. According to the U.S., abortion statics in million abortions took place (U.S abortion Statistics, ).
- An Argument Against Abortion Abortion is a serious topic that people have been debating about for years. Everywhere you turn the topic of abortion presents itself, on .
The word abortion by definition means the induced expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. Abortion is an extremely controversial issue because while some people are completely against it, others believe that a woman should have the right to choose. I believe /5(9). The word abortion by definition means the induced expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. Abortion is an extremely controversial issue because while some people are completely against it, others believe that a woman should have the right to choose.
The Argument of Abortion - Philosophy Essay The Argument of Abortion - Philosophy Essay In On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren discusses a few arguments against abortion, namely bringing into play whether the fetus is actually a person, or “not a . Persuasive essay against abortion - here the author should encompass as many as possible of reasons, ideas and research to make a comprehensive analysis of the negative aspects only; Abortion pro-choice essay - shows to the readers some of the ideas why, in certain cases, pregnancy terminating might .