I am continuing to post answers to common objectives by Scott Klusendorf (see part 3 & part 4).
- “If abortion is restricted, women will die from back-alley abortions.” Reply: This objection makes sense if the unborn are not human. Why subject women to a dangerous operation? But if a human child is involved, why should the law be faulted for making it more risky for someone to kill an innocent human being? Should we legalize bank robbery so that it is safer for felons?[1] As abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren points out, “The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of forbidding it.”[2] Again, the issue isn't safety, but “What is the unborn?” Nonetheless, the claim thousands died annually from back-alley abortions prior to 1973 (when Roe. v. Wade legalized abortion in the U.S.) is just plain false. Dr. Mary Calderone, former medical director for Planned Parenthood, wrote in 1960 that illegal abortions were performed safely by physicians in good standing in their communities and that fact alone explained the very low death rate.[3] Abortion advocates often reply that many deaths were covered up or unrecorded. This is pure conjecture. To support this assertion, they must present evidence to counter Dr. Calderone (who was one of their own leaders). In addition, the Centers for Disease Control report 39 women died from illegal abortion in 1972 (the year prior to legalization), not 5,000 to 10,000 as claimed by abortion advocates for each year prior to Roe.[4]
- “We shouldn’t let ethical questions over cloning and ESCR impede scientific progress.” Reply: Culturally, I fear we’ve embraced a technological morality that asserts that simply because we can achieve X, we are permitted to do X–in this case, clone human beings for destructive research. You can see this in British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s statement that those who oppose cloning embryos for destructive research are “anti-science:” Blair writes: “There is a danger, almost unintentionally, that we become anti-science. Our conviction about what is natural or right should not inhibit the role of science in discovering the truth—rather it should inform our judgment about the implications and consequences of the truth science uncovers. [We will] not stand by as successful British science once more ends up being manufactured abroad.”[5] On that same topic, U.S. Senator Orin Hatch remarked, “It would be terrible to say because of an ethical concept, we can’t do anything for patients.”[6] However, if Hatch and Blair are correct that science trumps morality, one can hardly condemn past atrocities such the Tuskegee experiments of the 1920s in which black men suffering from syphilis were promised treatment, only to have it denied so scientists could study the disease. Moreover, if “convictions about what is natural or right should not inhibit science,” how can we condemn Hitler for using Jews for grisly medical experiments, as happened in the death camps?
[1] Greg Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, p. 9.
[2] Mary Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” in The Problem of Abortion, Joel Feinberg, ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984) p.103.
[3] Mary S. Calderone, “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Public Health, July 1960.
[4] Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC Surveillance Summaries, September 4, 1992.
[5] “Don’t turn Against Science, Blair Warns Protesters,” London Daily Telegraph, November 18, 2000.
[6] Cited in “Clone Wars,” National Review on-line, July 1, 2002.
Looking for something?
Or visit the Site Map
