But rather than trying to untangle that knot, let's just examine the premise that abortion is wrong because human life is sacred.
To believe this, one really has to ignore just about every aspect of human life. If human life is so sacred, why not protest avoidable poverty, tens of thousands of unnecessary infant deaths due to lack of water purification that costs pennies? Why not work to support anti-malaria measures that would save millions of sacred human lives? Why not work to end war or to protect children from environmental contaminants that kill thousands every year? Why not oppose capital punishment that kills innocents or long prison sentences for victim less crimes?
Those who claim they oppose abortion in defense of the sacredness of human life (and don't devote energy and passion to any of these other causes) are speaking non-sense.
Fellow PT blogger Peter Singer has written eloquently on this question. One argument he's made is that if human life is sacred because of intelligence and consciousness, then an adult chimp's life is more sacred than a brain-damaged infant human's. The chimp's intelligence and consciousness is undeniably more developed than the infant's. On the other hand, if it's simply being a Homo sapiens that makes life sacred, why is a three week old fetus more deserving of our concern than a three year old child in Guatemala – or one living in poverty within miles of where you're reading this now?
Dear anti abortion crusaders: Human life is not sacred. Save your breath."
No comments:
Post a Comment