• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Levin is a fourth-year psychology and political science student.

By Ken Levin

This response to Lauren Black’s submission (“Abortion equals murder; it should be made illegal” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Jan. 29) is not based on my being “pro-choice” or “pro-life” (as if they are mutually exclusive), but rather on my being pro-reason.

If you’d like to make a moral argument about abortion, then make one: abortion is murder and it should never be legal. Within this framework, you’ve implied that life begins at conception and therefore the rights of the unborn child should be upheld.

When you stray from this simple, yet powerful argument, you are bound to show your lack of reason. This is just what Lauren Black did – repeatedly. She starts with the foundation that abortion is murder, so whether I believe this or not, I will start from the same position.

Black next states that it is hypocritical of those darn liberals to be completely abhorred by infanticide, like that in China, but not by abortion, because they are exactly the same. I am not going to debate the difference between an unborn child and a child that has been carried to term. Instead I will look at her example: China. She says in both cases, it is simply a matter of “unwanted pregnancies,” but she is incorrect. To my understanding, the infanticide that occurs in China is predominately in the rural areas where they cannot tell, in utero, whether the child is male or female. If the pregnancy bears the couple a male child, they are very happy, but if the child is female, infanticide ensues. This would suggest that the outcome of the pregnancy – and not the pregnancy itself – is unwanted.

This is a major difference in motivations. In the instance of abortion in America, it is almost always due to the mother or couple deciding they cannot do justice to the upbringing of the child, whatever their personal reasons may be. In the case of the infanticide in China it is usually due to the wish for a more “desirable” baby. I am not saying one justifies murder and the other doesn’t, I’m simply saying they are not the same thing.

Black suggests that we remember that one of those aborted babies could “have been you.” Well, no it couldn’t, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to read her article. But beyond that, I think she means to imply that an aborted baby could be another Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. Of course, an aborted baby might have been another Adolf Hitler or another person regarded as horrible. 

After this assertion, Black makes her most foolish statement: abortion is okay in the case of incest and rape. You can never make a moral argument that an unborn baby is entitled to the right to life and then say “except for instances of rape and incest.” The unborn baby that is a product of incest or rape is just as innocent as a baby that is born from a night of passion. But Black suggests that murder is justified in these limited cases. Does this mean after a woman has aborted her innocent child, she can go out and kill the man who raped her, or her father (uncle, brother, etc.) in the case of incest?

Black continues her misguided argument by suggesting that a judge determine if a couple “recklessly” got pregnant, and if so apparently the correct punishment (punishment is my inference) would be to make the “insensitive” and “cold-blooded” parents “responsible” for the child.

Great, so now not only is the women forced to bear the child, but they are forced to keep and take care of the child. Because that’s in the best interest of the child: to have insensitive and cold-blooded parents who didn’t want the child in the first place to be forced to raise the young one. I’m sure the baby will grow to be completely well-adjusted and happy.

However, Black may have just meant “be responsible” in forcing the mother to bear the child, allowing her then to put the child up for adoption. If this is the case, what about the father? Doesn’t he have to take some responsibility? And if so, what is that responsibility?

Adoption is her suggestion for sex education as well. Women wouldn’t perform abortions on their own (or I’m guessing have “back alley abortions”) if they just knew that adoption was an option! First off, I’ve noticed a high correlation between those who do not believe in a women’s right to an abortion, and those that believe only abstinence should be taught in sex ed. How are you going to teach about adoption then? Wouldn’t that be like (gasp) promoting sex? Or is teaching about condom use the only way to promote sex? 

Most women who are willing to go through the dangers of an illegal abortion are probably more worried about people finding out they are pregnant to begin with. If this is part of the reason they are contemplating an abortion, it’s obvious that adoption is not an option.

In her last assertion, Black says, “at least extend this right (to choose) to women still in the womb.” Apparently Black forgot to leave out another instance when abortion is morally justified. Along with incest and rape, being a male baby is also grounds for murder. I guess this idea is to offset the injustice to female babies in China?

If you’re going to make a moral argument – stick to your morals.

Comments

Post a comment