Reading the Nov. 13 op-ed submission entitled "Voice your choice," I was gratified that Alyssa Ursillo did not resort to the ad hominem attacks that so frequently pollute discussions over abortion. Like all important debates, this argument should be kept to the issues. The newly founded club, Jumbos for Life, argues that human life begins at conception and therefore the unborn are entitled to as much protection as anyone else.
The abortion debate has become one of the most contentious issues of our time. It is an argument over the nature of human life. To liken the decision to abort to the choice between boxers and briefs does a disservice to those on both sides who recognize that the debate is far more important and complicated than that.
Before the Civil War, Southern politicians declared that they did not want to force slavery on the rest of the states, but rather that they supported the choice for states to have slavery if they wanted. This example is not intended to imply that pro-choice advocates are the moral equivalent of slave-owners, merely to show the flaw in their logic.
In our enlightened time, everyone regards such justifications for slavery as deceitful and reprehensible. This is because we see that merely increased choice is not a good in and of itself. The right of personal choice ends when such choices infringe upon the rights to life or liberty of someone else.
Therefore, one who seeks the legality of abortion must demonstrate that his or her policies would not take away the fundamental right to life guaranteed to all people. If, after a mine collapse, a company official told family members of the victims, "We are not going to send a rescue team until you prove to us that your loved ones are alive down there," the nation would justifiably react with outrage.
This is because, in times of doubt, every effort should be made to err on the side of life. The burden of proof lies upon pro-choicers to show that unborn children are not children at all, but a collection of insignificant tissues. However, if the unborn are human beings, there is no way to justify their slaughter.
Realizing this, many pro-choice advocates try to demonstrate with a variety of arguments that the unborn are not actually humans. Each is demonstrably false, but since each relies on different premises, they must be taken one at a time.
Many claim that the fetus's presence inside the mother entitles her to ownership over the developing child: the "my body, my choice" argument. Unless the pro-choice advocate can explain how the woman's body is developing a second set of arms and legs, an extra heart and an extra brain, all with different DNA than her own, this explanation seems a little far-fetched. Furthermore, if someone were to steal a diamond ring and swallow it, I doubt any judge would accept the "it's in my body, so it's mine" defense.
Others argue that since the unborn are not conscious, then killing them is morally acceptable; after all, if the unborn don't know or care about being killed, who's getting hurt? This argument, too, has troubling implications.
For one thing, unborn children actually do develop consciousness in the womb, and they certainly feel pain in later stage abortions. But, even if they didn't, would it be okay to kill them just because they were unaware of being killed? If this doctrine were accepted, then stabbing someone in their sleep or murdering a coma patient should be legal. Clearly, consciousness cannot therefore be a prerequisite for human life.
Some suggest that the viability of the fetus should be the determining factor in the debate over abortion. However, the advance of modern science has steadily pushed earlier and earlier the time when a premature birth can be kept alive.
This progress has made it conceivable that someday, a baby might be developed from conception to full-term outside the mother. Does this mean that sometime in the future abortion should be illegal, just not now? To set the standard for the beginning of life on conditions bound to change makes the distinction arbitrary and meaningless. There must be a constant determining factor.
Some more extreme advocates argue that if a person does not contribute some substantial good to society, if a person has no demonstrable value, then they can be killed without moral qualm. This doctrine is the most troubling of all the pro-choice arguments. First, it violates the founding principle of this country that all people are entitled to the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
People do not have to do anything to earn these rights; they are inherent in our humanity. If one has to earn these rights by providing some service to society, then infants, orphans, the homeless, those on welfare and those with severe mental disabilities would all have to forfeit their lives.
It appears that each of the major fundamental premises justifying abortion lie on fallacious foundations or alternatively possess horrific implications. In short, there seems to be no other way to define human life except to say that a human life begins when an individual comes into existence, at conception.
Since this is the case, there can be no acceptable reason for killing an innocent human life. There are many tragic stories of women who have been raped, or who cannot easily afford a child, that resonate with sympathetic listeners. Nevertheless no suffering on the part of the mother can justify the killing of her unborn child as the solution, nor is it reasonable to kill a child for the crime of its father.
Recognizing the hardships undergone by mothers in such unfortunate circumstances, Jumbos for Life actively works with organizations that support women who have made the courageous decision to give birth to their children.
Like Alyssa Ursillo, I do not expect to change the minds of people who have already made them up. I do want to rebut the misconception that the pro-life position is based on unscientific, religious dogma.
The resistance to abortion should appeal to people across society's spectrum as a rational, logical and convincing argument. Rather than to harass pro-choicers or women who have had abortions, Jumbos for Life has been founded to present these arguments to the Tufts community and to promote the merits of the pro-life position on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.
Michael Hawley is a freshman who has not yet declared a major and he is also the secretary of Jumbos for Life.
