Thursday, June 21, 2007

Abortion

Nicole Hunter

Week 6 Blog



Here the question is, can a person consistently believe the three following statements?



Statement (A) says that a woman has no right to an abortion. By using these words the statement is essentially implying that, no matter what, under any circumstances, a woman is not allowed the right to an abortion.



Statement (B) says that a human embryo has an inviolable right to life. What this says is consistent with statement (A) in that the embryo has every right to live, and their right to life must not be violated by means of abortion. Since statement (A) is outlawing abortion, it concurs with statement (B), that this right to life is inviolable.



Statement (C) says that a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. It is immediately obvious that this statement conflicts both statements (A) and (B). When comparing statement (A) and (C) it is saying that a woman has no right to an abortion, but then immediately flips the tables and says, unless her own life is in danger. This automatically falsifies statement (A) in its entirety. When comparing statements (B) and (C) another inconsistency occurs. Here it is saying human embryos have an inviolable right to life, unless the mother's life is in danger, then it is okay to violate the child's life. Statement (B) has now become almost useless because its argument is taken over by either statement (A) or (C).



I think these three statements, while inconsistent in nature, are consistent in the minds of many pro-life advocates. There is definitely a more clear cut way to word the three statements and combine them into one. I am a strong believer in pro-choice for women, because, just as these pro-life statements show, there are far too many inconsistencies and unknown circumstances that lie within each individual case. There are endless amounts of what ifs, too many to be covered in a law banning all cases, no matter what the what ifs are. These statements only prove that further by contradicting themselves.

No comments: