Arguing Abortion | The New Yorker


newspaper articles against abortion

Mar 01,  · 'Killing babies' article reveals the truth of abortion, say pro-lifers Pro-life campaigners have welcomed publication of an article arguing killing newborns should be "permissible", saying it. Aug 27,  · Chicago Man Charged in Death Threat Against Abortion Clinic He is the second man to be arrested and charged by federal authorities this month in connection to posts on iFunny, an online . Apr 02,  · Abortion and PunishmentAbortion and Punishment. Abortion opponents answer this question by insisting that the woman is a victim, too — “broken and wounded,” in the words of Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America. The woman is desperate, confused and alone. Someone pushed her into it — her parents, her boyfriend or husband, Author: Katha Pollitt.

A logical argument against abortion :: Catholic News Agency

I hope a reader can show me where I've gone astray in the sequence steps that constitute this argument against newspaper articles against abortion. I honestly wish a pro-choicer would someday show me one argument that proved that fetuses are not persons. Newspaper articles against abortion would save me and other pro-lifers enormous grief, time, effort, worry, prayers, and money.

But until that time, I will keep arguing, because it's what I do as a philosopher. It is my weak and wimpy version of a mother's shouting that something terrible is happening: Babies are being slaughtered. I will do this because, as Edmund Burke declared, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, newspaper articles against abortion.

I doubt there are many readers of this magazine who are pro-choice. Why, then, do I write an argument against abortion for its readers? Why preach to the choir?

Preaching to the choir is a newspaper articles against abortion enterprise. Scripture calls it "edification," or "building up. We all need to clean and improve our apologetic weapons periodically; and this argument is the most effective one I know for actual use in dialogue with intelligent pro-choicers. I will be as upfront as possible. I will try to prove the simple, common-sensical reasonableness of the pro-life case by a sort of Socratic logic. My conclusion is that Roe v. Wade must newspaper articles against abortion overturned, and my fundamental reason for this is not only because of what abortion is but because we all know what abortion is.

This is obviously a controversial conclusion, and initially unacceptable to all pro-choicers. So, my starting point must be noncontroversial. It is this: We know what an apple is.

I will try to persuade you that if we know newspaper articles against abortion an apple is, Roe v. Wade must be overthrown, and that if you want to defend Roe, you will probably want to deny that we know what an apple is, newspaper articles against abortion. Our first principle should be as undeniable as possible, for arguments usually go back to their first principles. If we find our first premise to be a stone wall that cannot be knocked down when we back up against it, our argument will be strong.

Tradition states and common sense dictates our premise that we know what an apple is, newspaper articles against abortion. Almost no one doubted this, until quite recently. Even now, only philosophers, scholars, "experts," media mavens, professors, journalists, and mind-molders dare to claim that we do not know what an apple is. From the premise that "we know what an apple is," I move to a second principle that is only an explication of the meaning of the first: that we really know what an apple really is.

If this is denied, our first principle newspaper articles against abortion refuted. It becomes, "We know, newspaper articles against abortion, but not really, what an apple is, but not really.

From Step 2, I deduce the third principle, also as an immediate logical corollary, that we really know what some things other things than apples really are. This follows if we only add the minor premise that an apple is another thing. This third principle, of course, is the repudiation of skepticism. The secret has been out since Socrates that skepticism is logically self-contradictory. To say "I do not know" is to say "I know I do not know.

He was not the only man in the world who knew that he did not know. He had knowledge; he did not claim to have wisdom. He knew he was not wise. That is a wholly different affair and is not self-contradictory. All forms of skepticism are logically self-contradictory, nuance as we will.

All talk about rights, about right and wrong, about justice, presupposes this principle that we really know what some things really are.

We cannot argue about anything at all — anything real, as distinct from arguing about arguing, and about words, and attitudes — unless we accept this principle.

We can talk newspaper articles against abortion feelings without it, but we cannot talk about justice. We can have a reign of feelings — or a reign of terror — newspaper articles against abortion it, but we cannot have a reign of law.

Our fourth principle is that we know what we are. If we know what an apple is, surely we know what a human being is. For we aren't apples; we don't live as apples, we don't feel what apples feel if anything. We don't experience the existence or growth or life of apples, yet we know what apples are.

A fortiori, we know what we are, for we have "inside information," privileged information, more and better information. We obviously do not have total, or even adequate, knowledge of ourselves, or of apples, or if we listen to Aquinas of even a flea. There is obviously more mystery in a human than in an apple, but there is also more knowledge.

I repeat this point because I know it is often not understood: To claim that "we know what we are" is not to claim that we know all that we are, or even that we know adequately or completely or with full understanding anything at all of what we are.

We are a living mystery, but we also know much of this mystery. Knowledge and mystery are no more incompatible than eating and hungering for more. The fifth principle is the indispensable, common-sensical basis for human rights: We have human rights because we are human beings. We have not yet said what human beings are e. This certainly sounds innocent enough, but it implies a general principle.

Let's call that our sixth principle. Metaphysics means simply philosophizing about reality. The sixth principle means that rights depend on reality, and our knowledge of rights depends on our knowledge of reality.

By this point in our argument, some are probably feeling impatient. These impatient ones are common-sensical people, newspaper articles against abortion, uncorrupted by the chattering classes. They will newspaper articles against abortion, "Of course. We know all this. Get on with it. Get to the controversial stuff, newspaper articles against abortion. For not all are impatient; others are uneasy. The principle that morality depends on metaphysics means that rights depend on reality, or what is right depends on what is, newspaper articles against abortion.

Even if you say you are skeptical of metaphysics, we all do use the principle in moral or legal arguments. For instance, in the current debate about "animal rights," some of us think that animals do have rights and some of us think they don't, but we all agree that if they do have rights, they have animal rights, not human rights or plant rights, because they are animals, not humans or plants.

For instance, a dog doesn't have the right to vote, as humans do, because dogs are not rational, as humans are. But a dog probably does have a right not to be tortured. Because of what a dog is, and because we really know a little bit about what a dog really is: We really know that a dog feels pain and a tree doesn't. Dogs have feelings, unlike trees, and dogs don't have reason, like humans; that's why it's wrong to break a limb off a dog but it's not wrong to break a limb off a tree, and that's also why dogs don't have the right to vote but humans do.

The main reason people deny that morality must or even can be based on metaphysics is that they say we don't really know what reality is, we only have opinions. They point out, correctly, that we are less agreed about morality than science or everyday practical newspaper articles against abortion. We don't differ about whether the sun is a planet or whether we need to eat to live, but we do differ about things like abortion, capital punishment, and animal rights.

But the very fact that we argue about it — a fact the skeptic points to as a reason for skepticism — is a refutation of skepticism, newspaper articles against abortion. We don't argue about how we feel, about subjective things. You never hear an argument like this: "I feel great. For instance, both pro-lifers and pro-choicers usually agree that it's wrong to kill innocent persons against their will and it's not wrong to kill parts of persons, like cancer cells.

And both the proponents and opponents of capital punishment usually agree that human life is of great value; that's why the proponent wants to protect the life of the innocent by executing murderers and why the opponent wants to protect the life even of the murderer. They radically disagree about how to apply the principle that human life is valuable, but they both assume and appeal to that same principle. All these examples so far are controversial, newspaper articles against abortion.

How to apply moral principles to these issues is controversial. What is not controversial, I hope, newspaper articles against abortion, is the principle itself that human rights are possessed by human beings because of what they are, because of their being — and not because some other human beings have the power to enforce their will. That would be, literally, "might makes right. But that is the only alternative, no matter what the political power structure, no matter who or how many hold the power, newspaper articles against abortion a single tyrant, or an aristocracy, or a majority of the freely voting public, or the vague sentiment of what Rousseau called "the general will.

A constitutional newspaper articles against abortion, in which the king and the people are subject to the same law, is a rule of law, not of power; a lawless democracy, in which the will of the majority is unchecked, is a rule of power, not of law.

The reason all human beings have human rights is that all human beings are human. Only two philosophies of human rights are logically possible. Either all human beings have rights, or only some human beings have rights, newspaper articles against abortion.

There is no third possibility. But the reason for believing either one of these two possibilities is even more important than which one you believe. Suppose you believe that all human beings have rights. Do you believe that all newspaper articles against abortion beings have rights because they are human beings? Do you dare to do metaphysics?

Are human rights "inalienable" because they are inherent in human nature, in the human essence, in the human being, in what humans, in fact, are? Or do you believe that all human beings have rights because some newspaper articles against abortion beings say so — because some human wills have declared that all human beings have rights? Newspaper articles against abortion it's the first reason, you are secure against tyranny and usurpation of rights. - The Pro-Life News Source


newspaper articles against abortion


The abortion wars in America are typically cast as a battle between choice and life, with one side arguing that a woman's decision about her own body is paramount, and the other, that a developing baby's life trumps all. But in Northern Ireland – where abortion laws Author: Susan Milligan. Aug 27,  · Chicago Man Charged in Death Threat Against Abortion Clinic He is the second man to be arrested and charged by federal authorities this month in connection to posts on iFunny, an online . Women's rights and gender equality Failed by Indonesia: the girl, 15, raped by her brother and jailed for abortion. Published: 15 Aug Failed by Indonesia: the girl, 15, raped by .