The Case for Life

There are many different social issues being debated by our society today, one of the most controversial being the issue of abortion.  There are many people who are passionately involved with this issue, both those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice.  I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, and thus is wrong.  For this reason, I believe that our Federal government should make abortion illegal.

Before I explain why I believe abortion should be made illegal, I want you to understand why I believe it is wrong.  The disagreements between pro-life and pro-choice advocates can be boiled down to just one question, is an unborn child alive? If a pro-choice advocate believed that an unborn child is alive, then they wouldn’t agree with abortion.  I believe that an unborn child is fully human, fully a person, and fully alive from the moment of conception.  Dr. Maureen Condic, an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, says that embryos are living human beings "precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells."  She goes on to say that “Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.” (1)  Clearly, from a scientific point of view, an unborn human is alive right from the moment of conception, so abortion, the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy (2), kills a human being.  This is why I believe abortion is wrong.    

Now that I have established why abortion is wrong it is easy to understand that I believe it should be illegal because it takes a human life.  The Federal government does not make things like drunk driving legal, which sometimes kill a human, so how can it make abortion legal which always kills a human?  Similarly, I believe the Federal government needs to be the one who makes abortion illegal, not the individual states.  Individual states were not allowed to determine whether or not slavery should be legal within their borders because slavery is always wrong, no matter the circumstance.  Abortion is just as wrong in Texas as it is in New York and every other state, so it makes sense to that the Federal government should be the one to make it illegal.  

One issue that pro-choice advocates bring up when pro-lifers say that abortion should be illegal is, what should happen to the mother?  Should she be treated as a murderer and sent to prison?  I don’t believe a woman who has an illegal abortion should be treated as a criminal.  Many women who are considering an abortion feel it is their only choice and can’t see the other options that are available.  They do not have an abortion because they want to kill their baby, they have an abortion to fix what they consider a problem that has no other solution.  For this reason, I believe that instead of being treated with hate, a woman who has an illegal abortion should be treated with compassion and love.  Sending her to prison will not fix anything.  I think a woman who has an illegal abortion should be given counseling and help with whatever made her decide an abortion was her only option.  After all, just as the mother is not more important then the unborn baby, the unborn baby is not more important then the mother and so the mother should not be forgotten. 

The issue of abortion has been debated for many years, and no doubt will continue to be debated for many more.  But I believe that eventually, because of the scientific evidence, abortion will be seen for what it really is, the taking of a human life and our Federal government will take action to make it illegal.  

(1) http://www.caseforlife.com/evidence.asp

(2) New Oxford American Dictionary

Good Points Do Not Always Mean Good Arguments

In an article written by Ann Coulter entitled “Get Rid of Government -- But First Make Me President!” published on June 15, 2011 on anncoulter.com, Coulter talks about all the reasons she can’t stand libertarians.  While she makes some good points about flaws in the thinking of libertarians, Coulter attacks libertarians too aggressively to 

effectively convince anyone who doesn’t already share her opinions to agree with her.  

Coulter’s choice of words in this article alienates any readers who don’t already agree with her.  By using words like “babbling” (paragraph 2) to describe libertarians she makes libertarians sound like idiots thus making everyone who even slightly agrees with them become defensive.  This tactic of aggressively attacking libertarians is somewhat effective for the conservative readers who frequent her blog, but if anyone comes in search of an opinion different from their own they will have to look past the attacks to see Coulter’s points.  

One of the main statements Coulter attacks is a suggestion made by Rep. Ron Paul on June 13, 2011.  Ron Paul, in response to his opinion of gay marriage, suggests that marriage should not be something the government needs to be involved with, saying that it should go to the church and individuals (paragraph 7).  Coulter’s says this is a very impractical idea because of all the legal issues and government programs that rely on the  legal contract of marriage.  She asks, “If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined? ... Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?” (paragraphs 8-9)  By pointing out all of these issues Coulter shows that it would be impossible to take away the government’s registration of marriage because of all the marriage related programs and legal issues we’ve created for the government to oversee.  

While Coulter’s assessment of Ron Paul’s argument has many valid points, she does nothing to convince people who don’t share her beliefs to agree with her.  No one who agrees with Ron Paul in anyway will be very willing to listen to her argument against him when they read Coulter comparing him to a vegetarian who still eats meat (paragraph 11).  Coulter also doesn’t do herself any favors by saying all liberals and libertarians “appeal to irrational mobs to attain power” while conservatives never do (paragraph 23).  In both groups there are people who do that, and it is unfair to both groups to make that statement. 

Coulter makes many good points in this article and calls out some faulty thinking of libertarians and Ron Paul.  Her opinions are well thought out and backed up by reliable evidence, but her manner of presenting it is completely off.  If Coulter had communicated her views in a way that sought to convince her reads more then to attack those she disagrees with, then this would have been a much more effective article