Conduct debate with reason, not rhetoric

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.”Â 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.”Â 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.