Liana on Human Rights

Political Science 1

Final Exam

A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth. If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy. Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This frivolous phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't disprove the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference when it comes to the morality of abortion.

It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice. That is the argument of people, pro-choice. That the woman has the right to choose, sacrificing her fetus’ rights for her own.

Pro-abortion advocates consistently rely on the same arguments they have used for decades. When a woman is pregnant, science tells us that the new life she carries is a complete and fully new human being from the moment of fertilization. By the time most abortions can be performed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves. The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a new person/human being as you are from me, and as deserving of protection under the law as we are. The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can't be done until after six weeks. Every mother is faced with profound decisions to make for herself and her child but these decisions can never include the right to kill her baby.

Mothers facing difficult pregnancies require accurate and compassionate information about the facts of fetal development as well as the practical help that is available to them through the more than 3,000 mother helping centers around the USA. Mothers have a right to be fully informed about the facts at least 24 hours before making this life or death decision for themselves and their child. We will never end poverty in our world simply by killing poor children. The poor mother who is encouraged to have an abortion today is just as poor tomorrow. Problems such as lack of job security, education, or abuse are not cured by ignoring their existence in a woman's life and turning to abortion as a way to make it all "go away."

The problem is lack of development -- not population. What women of the world desire are good basic health care for themselves and their families. In those countries where abortion is not legal, it is often because of strong cultural and religious beliefs that respect each new life. That respect needs to be backed up with wiser development plans not more dangerous and deadly abortion activity. In countries where there is not even the guarantee of clean running water, abortion will only become a death sentence for third world women and their babies.

The conclusion I draw to this issue is doctors don't cure illness by killing the patient. Aborting a child with a disability or illness is the height of prejudice. When a family learns that the child they are expecting may have a special need, that family needs support and good solid medical information -- not the death of their most fragile member. I believe that abortion should only be considered an option in the case of rape or incest. An April 2004 Zogby poll found that 56% of Americans support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest or when it threatens the life of the mother. In a statistical breakdown of “Why do Women have Abortions” it shows that 93% of Americans have abortions because the woman feels unready for child and the responsibility, feels she can't afford the baby, has all the children she wants and other family responsibilities, relationship problem such as single motherhood, feels she isn't mature enough, interference with education or career plans, or her parents or partner wants abortion. It shows that only 7% of Americans have abortions due to rape, incest, the baby having a health complication, or the mother having a health complication. I personally think that is wrong, I also believe that killing your baby for your convenience is not your right. That is murder. When a woman has been raped or a victim of incest, she has been the victim of a terrifying act of violence of which she is a true victim. Tragically, we are some times faced with a second victim of this great crime committed by the rapist, a baby. While pregnancy is extremely rare from rape, it can happen. The cruelest thing that can happen to the women in question is to now be pitted against her child, who is the second victim. In several studies done across America, women who were encouraged to use abortion in such circumstances felt that they had been put through a second act of violence, the violence and pain of the mechanical rape of abortion. Worse than that, they stated feelings of being made into the victimizer of their own child. They felt that their baby had paid with its life for the crime of the rapist. I believe in the cases of rape or incest it is then the mothers choice. I believe that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. Killing your baby because it interferes with your life is selfish, you never know what that child could become, or what joy it could bring to another family that can not physically have children.

The Bible requires the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes, including practicing evil sorcery, adultery, homosexual behavior, doing work on Saturday and murder. It even calls for some criminals (e.g. prostitutes who are the daughters of priests) to be tortured to death by being burned alive. Most Christians, with the exception of those in the Reconstruction movement, feel that many of these grounds for the death penalty no longer apply to Christian societies. U.S. However, Bible passages are still used to promote the retention of capital punishment for murderers. A few conservative Christians advocate that homosexuals also be executed. Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. They feel that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response. Many people feel that the death penalty will deter criminals from killing. This does not seem to be confirmed by an analysis of the available data. However, it feels intuitively correct for many people. "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." (Edward Koch). Once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no further maintenance costs to the state. This appears to be invalid; the cost to the state paying for multiple appeals is generally greater than the cost of imprisoning an inmate. Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone.

Some Christians feel that they are no longer bound by the legal codes of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the death penalty is no longer required. Since the Bible was written, as society became more tolerant, we eliminated the death penalty for pre-marital sex, practicing a different religion, engaging in prostitution, homosexual behavior, blasphemy, rebellion by teenagers, etc. Some people believe we should eliminate it for murder as well. Abolitionists often quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position. She had been sentenced to death by stoning, but Jesus used a cleaver ploy to gain her freedom. He suggested that the accuser who was without sin cast the first stone. None were free of sin and thus none could start the execution. Some theologians believe that the early church was closer to Jesus' teachings than are the present-day churches. They were unalterably opposed to the death penalty. Early Christians would not take a person to court if there were any possibility that they could be executed if found guilty. Some people believe that capital punishment is playing God, that executing people before their natural death Some Christians believe that God places people on Earth for a purpose. If we kill them prematurely, then we may be thwarting God's will. Some feel that permitting premeditated murder is totally unacceptable, even if committed by the state. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life as seen by the general population and brutalizes society. It is based on a need for revenge. A Quaker group suggests that It "violates our belief in the human capacity for change.... [It] powerfully reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to those who have wronged us. We do not believe that reinforcement of that idea can lead to healthier and safer communities." The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the murder rate. The costs to the state of funding appeals by convicted murderers would more than pay for their permanent incarceration. Human life has intrinsic value, even if a person has murdered another individual. The death penalty denies the sacredness of human life. Live is so precious that nobody should ever be killed, even by the state. The mentally ill, poor, males and racial minorities are over-represented among those executed. One pilot study of over 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row found that all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage. Women convicted of murder are almost never executed; that is a penalty that is almost entirely reserved for men. A 1986 study in Georgia showed that persons who killed "whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites.” Many convicted murderers are later found innocent, and have been pardoned. It is impossible to pardon a corpse. In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review. They found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed." Some consider capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment. By killing the person before the time when they would have naturally died, we are eliminating any chance that they might have for salvation. The family of the prisoner is victimized and punished by having their loved one murdered by the state. Yet the family is usually innocent of any crime. Some jury members are reluctant to convict in murder trials because of the possibility of executing an innocent person. Thus, many killers go free and are never punished. Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person.

I believe that there is nothing cruel or unusual about execution. If you take a life, you deserve to have your own life taken, in certain circumstances. If however you accidentally took someone’s life I do not think your life should be taken, only for premeditated murder, such as Abortion. If you are willing to abort your baby, you too should die.