Men Should Have No Say Womens' Abortion Decision

As indicated in the comments, as men being allowed to have opinions on abortion is largely uncontroversial (and to deny this is to commit a logical fallacy known as ad hominem, saying that a man's opinion is worthless specifically because he's a man), this debate will focus on whether or not men should have any say in whether or not a woman aborts her child, or in whether or not society should forbid abortions. I will make the following argument:P1) The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings. P2) Killing human beings is immoral. P3) Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc. ). C) Therefore, men can take a stand against abortion (including making it illegal, etc. ). To support my first premise:Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [1]Another embryologist has written the following: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. " [2]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [3]Additionally, pro-choice philosopher David Boonin writes: "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. " [4]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the other signs of life, such as metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human. "This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. Therefore, the unborn entity is the offspring of both the mother and the father. To support my second premise:This is largely uncontroversial. Killing adult human beings is wrong. What makes it wrong? Philosopher Don Marquis illuminates the reason in his famous article against abortion, Why Abortion is Immoral:“Some answers can be eliminated. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is that a killing brutalizes the one who kills. But the brutalization consists of being injured to the performance of an act that is hideously immoral; hence, the brutalization does not explain the immorality. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is the great loss others would experience due to our absence. Although such hubris is understandable, such an explanation does not account for the wrongness of killing hermits, or those whose lives are relatively independent and whose friends find it easy to make new friends. “A more obvious answer is better. What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim. ” [5]Killing human beings is wrong because it robs them of all their future experiences. Killing the unborn are also wrong for the same reason. To support premise three:This should also be largely uncontroversial. You didn't have to be African to oppose slavery in America, you didn't have to be Jewish to oppose the Holocaust. You don't have to be female to oppose slavery, or attempt to put an end to it. Conclusion:Therefore, the conclusion is supported. If men have no say in the issue, then you would have to remove pro-choice men from the equation, as well. We would have to overturn Roe v. Wade, in fact, because it was voted on by nine men. Anyone can oppose the killing of innocent human beings. So anyone, men included, can attempt to get abortion made illegal again, as killing older humans is legal. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [2] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16. [3] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. [4] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20. [5] Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, 1989.