Men Should Have No Say Womens' Abortion Decision

I will reply briefly to Pro's comments. I am aware of the awful nature of abortion (though some pro-choice advocates argue that there is nothing bad about abortion). Germaine Greer is simply mistaken about the nature of relationships. Certainly some relations are of a coercive nature, but not all (or even most) of them. Additionally, even if a woman is "coerced" into having relations (which is a very dubious statement), she still bears moral culpability for the child she was instrumental in conceiving. The real solution is to raise boys to be better men and treat women with respect, not to kill a living human being that she conceives. My statement that women should be prevented from having abortions is not a horrible statement (and indeed, Pro has decided to attack a strawman). Women have control over their bodies, but no one has absolute right over their bodies. Pro-choice philosopher Louis Pojman provides an example: "Consider 500-pound Fat Fred who decides to sit down, but your money-packed wallet happens to be directly on the spot where he sits. You request him to move his body so that you can get your wallet, but he refuses, claiming that he has an absolute right to do with his body what he wills. " [1] No one has an absolute right to bodily integrity, and if the unborn are valuable human beings (as we are), then prevented an abortion is not attempting to control womens' bodies, it is preventing abortionists and women from murdering the most vulnerable members of our species. I will now respond to Pro's criticisms of my argument. P1 -- The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings. Pro mentions that from the sixth month (it's actually a couple of weeks before the sixth month) the unborn are not able to live independently. But he doesn't support his contention as to why this is a morally relevant reason to allow us to kill them. Until he supports this contention, it should be regarded as a baseless assertion, nothing more. The unborn is the same entity from fertilization past viability past birth, so there is no reason to grant the unborn rights at viability and not before. Abortion, medically, is merely the separation of the unborn from the woman. However, medical methods to perform this procedure are not mere separations, it is direct killing -- through dismemberment, poisoning, etc. As Frank Beckwith writes, "euphemistically calling abortion the withholding of support makes about as much sense as calling suffocating someone with a pillow the withdrawing of oxygen. " [2]P2 -- Killing human beings is [prima facie] immoral. Point taken in regards to certain types of killing. I have amended my statement to read that killing humans is prima facie immoral. It is not always wrong to kill, especially in self-defense. While there is some privacy involved in moral decisions, if abortion kills an innocent human being then it can't be justified in the name of privacy, any more than child abuse or spousal abuse could be justified by claiming that it was done in the privacy of their own home/bedroom. P3 -- Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc. ). Immorality is not subjective. When I say abortion is wrong, I am not saying "I dislike abortion" like I dislike guacamole. I am saying that it is wrong for all people, at all times (this would include men, if they had the capacity to become pregnant). If Pro can say that murder is wrong (as he seemed to have conceded in his critique of my second premise), then he could admit that if abortion were murder, it would also be objectively wrong. And by "stand against," I merely mean "work toward the ending of the practice. " I do not condone abortion-related violence from the pro-choice or the pro-life side. Slavery was once legal in the United States. It is now illegal. If morality were merely subjective, then slavery was a moral practice, and the abolitionists who opposed it were moral monsters, not heroes. I am sure Pro would also concede that slavery was immoral, even when it was legal (at least, I hope he would). As such, all human beings are deserving of dignity. What is legal is not always moral, and what is moral is not always legal. It is not right to mistreat women, even if it is legal to do so. In the example from Bangladesh, I would say that no, it would be wrong for them to whack any "offending women. " I would hope Pro would agree. I would also hope Pro would agree it would be wrong of them to do so, even if it is legal for them to do so. But moral relativism would dictate that it is moral for some men to abuse women. Civilized countries hold to the same moral standard, e. g. that murder is wrong and is illegal. They may disagree on what constitutes murder, but they still hold "murder is wrong" to be an objective moral standard. The pro-life position makes a case that abortion is immoral and should be illegal (since murder is illegal). If this is true, then pro-life advocates are well within their rights to oppose it. C -- Therefore, men can take a stand agaisnt abortion (including making it illegal, etc. ). No, it was not a joke. If men must stay out of the abortion issue, we would have to overturn all the legislation on abortion that was voted on by men. Pro can't have it both ways. If men must stay out of the abortion issue, they must stay out on both sides. The sword cuts both ways. We must give abortion legislation back to the states, and then have only women decide on legislation about whether or not abortion should be legal. Pro states, ". .. if we were to overturn all decisions made by men, we would have to include the decisions that made abortion illegal in the first place, all the rulings of the Catholic Church, and indeed most of Chrsitianity, which has been very male dominated. "Pro misrepresents my position. Only abortion-related decisions that were made by men would have to be overturned. Nothing in my reductio would indicate that every decision by males would have to be overturned. Besides, this is what Pro's position entails, not mine. My position entails that if something is immoral, especially so immoral that it should be illegal (such as murder, rape, and abortion, if it fits), then men have as much say in restricting it as women do. I have sufficiently upheld my argument. Pro has failed to give any compelling reason as to why the abortion decision should remain the woman's considering it, and hers alone. [1] Louis P. Pojman, "Abortion: A Defense of the Personhood Argument," The Abortion Controversy, 2nd Ed. , ed. Louis P. Pojman and Frank J. Beckwith, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998, p.278. [2] Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993, p. 133.