Is abortion objectively wrong?
IS ANYTHING OBJECTIVELY WRONG?
The first question that needs to be answered before the abortion issue can be properly discerned is this: “is ANYTHING objectively wrong?” Many people have been taught relativism in school and mistakenly use that as their reference point for moral discernment. Relativism is the idea that morality is all relative/subjective and everyone gets to make up their own moral code. The logical outworking of relativism is that no OBJECTIVE moral distinction can be made between the actions of Mother Theresa and Hitler because they both were acting out their own morality. You can say you prefer one’s actions over the other, but your statement says nothing OBJECTIVE of the acts themselves. You are merely giving your SUBJECTIVE preference the way some people prefer chocolate over vanilla.
If we subscribe to a moral philosophy of moral relativism (i.e. NOTHING is objectively wrong) then we cannot call ANYTHING wrong. Ironically, when moral relativists scream at Christians for “judging others”, they don’t seem to realize that they are:
1. “Judging” the Christian. In other words they are doing the very thing they believe is objectively WRONG.
and
2. They are acting as if “judging” is objectively wrong. In other words, they are affirming the very thing (an objective wrong) that their moral philosophy denies.
The first question that needs to be answered before the abortion issue can be properly discerned is this: “is ANYTHING objectively wrong?” Many people have been taught relativism in school and mistakenly use that as their reference point for moral discernment. Relativism is the idea that morality is all relative/subjective and everyone gets to make up their own moral code. The logical outworking of relativism is that no OBJECTIVE moral distinction can be made between the actions of Mother Theresa and Hitler because they both were acting out their own morality. You can say you prefer one’s actions over the other, but your statement says nothing OBJECTIVE of the acts themselves. You are merely giving your SUBJECTIVE preference the way some people prefer chocolate over vanilla.
If we subscribe to a moral philosophy of moral relativism (i.e. NOTHING is objectively wrong) then we cannot call ANYTHING wrong. Ironically, when moral relativists scream at Christians for “judging others”, they don’t seem to realize that they are:
1. “Judging” the Christian. In other words they are doing the very thing they believe is objectively WRONG.
and
2. They are acting as if “judging” is objectively wrong. In other words, they are affirming the very thing (an objective wrong) that their moral philosophy denies.
The following argument refutes relativism:
P1: Either some acts are objectively evil/wrong and therefore relativism is false, or no acts are objectively evil/wrong and therefore relativism is true. P2: Some acts (e.g. torturing babies for fun) are objectively wrong. C: Therefore, relativism is false. It really is that simple folks! Now that we have established that certain acts (e.g. torturing babies for fun) are objectively evil we can consider whether or not abortion is objectively wrong. |
|
WHAT IS THE UNBORN AND WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?
When considering whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not, the most relevant question to consider is, “what is the unborn?”
If the unborn is just some clump of cells, then I can’t see anything wrong with getting rid of some unwanted “cells”. If, however, the unborn is a human LIFE, that life deserves the same protection we offer all defenseless human LIVES.
We know the unborn is a human life so it seems the next relevant question is, “when does ‘life’ begin?” It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception (when the sperm joins the ovum and the two become ONE zygote). A zygote is a new distinct LIFE--period.
Here are some quotes from doctors affirming the fact that the unborn is a human life, and that human life begins at conception:
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania states:
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….”
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[ Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29].
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Some pro-choice advocates try to complicate the abortion matter by asking subjective questions like: “Half of zygotes are ejected; should we mourn over the loss of a zygote?”
Let us consider the quote above from Dr. Bongioanni. What Dr. Bongioanni is saying is that the rate of survival ("half are ejected") is not indicative of WHAT THE ZYGOTE IS. Whether or not we should mourn over a lost zygote is a subjective question, but whether or not a zygote with 46 human chromosomes IS A HUMAN LIFE is an OBJECTIVE question with an objective answer.
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee: “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This STRAIGHTFORWARD BIOLOGICAL FACT should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”
In conclusion, the issue of whether or not abortion is wrong is as simple as the following argument:
P1: Taking an innocent human life is objectively wrong.
P2: Abortion takes an innocent human life.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is objectively wrong.