Pro-choice Argument

malice = the intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.


I assume that you do not consider an unborn child to be 'another' as stated in the definition provided above - but since you've based your argument upon the law (using the term 'illegal'), let's see what the law has to say.


In an article posted today, it was announced that scott peterson was found guilty of double homicide in the slaying of his pregnant wife.


The law says that an unborn child is a person if it is killed by the father, and a non-person if it is killed by the mother - yet we're supposed to trust the law?

'we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america.'

- united states constitution



since justice appears in the first statement of the constitution let's look at it's meaning.

justice - conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

We can see that one of the primary purposes of the constitution is to bring about conformity to moral rightness. The laws are intended to uphold moral values.

you've raised a good point here. I don't think any of us want to see morality legislated to the point that we are going to jail for saying a swear word. At the same time, the idea that morality can be completely divorced from the law is an illusion. You have argued that the prostitution laws should be removed because morality should not dictate the law. However, you are justifying your argument by use of your own moral values. The underlying moral value that you've stated is: 'we should be free to pursue our own happiness as long as it doesn't result in harm to others'. Therefore, to decide that the law should be changed, would be to say that it must be rewritten because it does not reflect your moral judgment.

One final thing - human rights only exist because we have agreed that human life should be valued. Saying 'human life should be valued' is itself a statement of moral values.

first of all, let me express my appreciation for your answer. Abortion is an issue that is loaded with emotion. It's often difficult to suppress our tendency to respond with emotional outbursts against one another - you have refrained from this - many thanks.

I think that what we are both looking for is a reasonable representation of moral values in the law.

Your statement of moral values - 'live and let live'

my statement of moral values - 'love the lord your god with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' (this can actually be reduced to 'love the lord your god with all your heart soul and mind and strength.' because if you hold only to this value, you will hold to the other as a result).


Clearly, we both have only one statement of moral values. Yet each consists of a set of moral regulations. They include things like 'you shouldn't steal', 'you shouldn't 'm' word', 'you shouldn't cause physical harm' etc. Both of our value sets share the fact that they can be reduced into one statement, though they encompass a broad spectrum of behavioral limitations.

The other thing that our values have in common is that they cannot be legislated entirely. I phrased your moral values statement as 'we should be free to pursue our own happiness as long as it doesn't result in harm to others'. Of course, a word spoken in anger, gossip, etc. Does cause harm to others. So we must agree that while our morals represent an ideal of human behavior, neither of them can be legislated 100%.

The funny thing about both of our value sets, is that while they appear quite different on the surface, they are actually very close in their application. My view is that every wrong act results in undue harm to oneself or another. So in holding to my values, I am saying
that we should not harm one another. Also, the underlying value in 'live and let live' is that we are to show proper respect for each other - this is a natural consequence of loving one another. Of course, in my equation, god fits in as one of the others, so I consider it my mandate to show him proper respect also. Nevertheless, if I were to adopt your moral value statement, the net result would be the same for me.

Not everyone in our society believes in god, and we don't all share the same moral views - still, we have to live with each other, and that means coming up with a law that represents either a consensus on morality, or a 51% agreement on morality. In the case of abortion, if the 51% has spoken, and abortion is not considered by them to be gross immorality, then legalizing it is right in terms of democratic process (which is all we have to work with).

Having said that, one can still look at this as an unjust law. Even if societies moral value statement can be summed up as 'live and let live', which I believe is a commonly accepted moral standard, this value statement can still be applied to the unborn (whose life is being taken). That is why I debate abortion. That is also why I like to focus on the question of whether or not the unborn is a person.

I could provide oodles and oodles of support for the theory that the bible is true. I've already pointed the way in suggesting 'the case for christ'. Still, this approach would end up being the long way around. While I am open to such discussions, it is my hope that I can cast enough doubt on the view that the unborn is not a person (without citing my strongest evidence), that I could win the hearts and minds of the 51%, and see the law changed.