Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -First Amendment, United States Constitution Abortion and the Case for Life: What is the Unborn? By Jacob Lovell Staff Columnist jlovell 1 @my.westga .edit The pro-life, pro choice debate has been raging since before your mother decided against aborting you. Regardless of the various arguments that have evolved over time, the debate about abortion comes down to one, and only one, issue. Pro-choice advocates often believe that any anti-abortion argument is based solely upon religious conviction. “It is only religious zealots that would care so much about protecting a clump of tissue,” they might say. But such a statement is only valid if “clump of tissue" cannot be replaced with “human child". To assume that the unborn is merely a clump of cells indistinct from the mother is to assume it is not a human being, no more than hair or a cancerous growth. Claiming that the abortion debate is based solely upon religion is to deny the ability of nonreligious people to value human life in the event that the unborn are, in fact, human beings. That alone is an insult, but the issue is not religion. The issue is the possible humanity of the unborn. So, what is the unborn? The pro-choice movement would also have you believe, usually alongside the religious accusation, that the pro life position is a relative one. “That’s just your view” would be a typical accusation, probably followed by a “Don’t force The West Georgian is now accepting applications for the Editor-in-Chief position for 2008-2009. To apply, pick up application from the Mass Communications Office, Humanities Bldg. Rm. 152. your morality on me.” I think purple is prettier than green. That’s just my view. Such statements deal with preference claims. The idea that a moral claim is subjective (like in the case of color preference) and not objective is, besides being a philosophically suicidal idea, to cast aside other moral claims like, “Racism is wrong" and "Babies shouldn’t be tortured for fun". If you’re a ‘moral relativist’, ask yourself the question. “Is torturing babies for fun wrong?” If you say,"Well, I personally, would not like to torture babies for fun,” you’ve avoided the question. The question is not about your preference for baby torture. The question is whether or not doing so is wrong. If one can make the moral claim that “Murder is wrong,” then such a claim could apply to the unborn if unborn humans are, indeed, fully human. So the question again: What is the unborn? The unborn cannot be fully human if the pro choice case is to hold water. Advocates often fail to actually argue the point with facts or reason, and instead rely on assuming the answer in their rhetoric. This is the fallacy called “Begging the Question" behind most pro-choice arguments. An example of this would be the statement, “Parking ‘Services’ is evil because it is bad." While that statement is valid, its evidence is merely a restatement of the original premise, adding nothing to the argument, and constitutes circular Do you want your voice heard? Then check out The West Georgian’s website and speak your mind about this week’s stories. Simply reply online at: www.thewestqeorqian.com Welcome UWG to “Moe Monday” (Thru Thursday) Burrito, Chips & Drink Only $5 With Student ID reasoning. Arguing that abortion is justified because a woman has a right to her own body assumes there is only one body involved— that of the woman. Some would argue the supposedly neutral position that nobody knows when life begins in the womb, so abortion must remain legal through all nine months of pregnancy. This is based upon the assumption that life does not begin until birth - the exact point abortion advocates are trying to prove! This argument is based entirely upon fallacy. Assumptions along these lines can allow for the “coat hanger, back alley” argument: If ‘safe’ abortions are outlawed, women w ill resort to unsafe abortion methods. Why should a law protecting the unborn be faulted? Should murder be legalized so that murderers can safely kill in public and not resort to dangerous tactics that might conceal their deeds? Abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren concedes, "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 prohibiting it.” The issue is not safety but rather the status of the unborn that has been assumed by the person using such an argument. So the question remains unanswered: What is the unborn? To apply this more broadly, try and bring in Opinion any particular argument for abortion and see if that argument can likewise justify the killing of toddlers or other humans. If it cannot, then the argument has assumed that the unborn is not, in fact, fully human. For example, abortion advocates often use the emotional issue of conception via rape (as if this single case can justify electi veabortion i ngeneral). Rape, an objectively evil thing, creates a victim that deserves the best care available. The hardship of dealing with a child from rape, abortion advocates protest, is surely something that a woman does not deserve. I agree— she deserves to deal with that child no more than she deserved the rape. This argument ignores, however, what a civil society should do w ith people w ho remind us of a painful event. Would killing them make us feel better or save us money? Put another way: Can you think of a situation where you can justifiably kill someone if it saves you any further stress that might result from them existing? Can you think of any situation w here, after being utterly victimized yourself, you could turn and justly victimize another, innocent person? If the unborn entity is human, he or she should not be killed to benefit the mother as hardship does not justify homicide. Compare this also to a tragically px)r person whom cannot justifiably murder a rich person simply to take the rich person’s money and thereby be better off. This free Library Skills Classes Sien Up Now Classes Fill Fast! Does the Library seem overwhelimns to you? Then come to one of our free 45 minute training sessons 1 Sign up on the Library's website: http://vfvyw.westga.edu/-4ibrary/nav/st.uinstruct.shtml U // 'it< i ‘ ' }'■> . ./. Library is so because the rich person is a person. The debate returns to that question: What is the unborn? The debate usually becomes, “When during pregnancy does this entity become human?” For this. I’ll quote Dr. Daniel Heiminiak, an author and professor of psychology here at West Georgia. Heiminiak, an advcxate for legal abortion, admitted to the centrality of the question when he restated what he claims to be an idea he shares w ith ancient philosophers. Heiminiak wrote, “Without doubt, if the fetus is actually a human person, then abortion would be wrong,” in one of his books. He goes on to say that, “In the early weeks, the fetus is too under-developed to support the presence of a soul, so there could not yet be a human person there," and further restates his position by making the claim (based upon weak ties to biology) that the unborn creature is incapable of supporting a "spirit" before the 20th week. Who is it that is using religion in the abortion debate? I have not done so, and 1 would also not use strained connections to biology to justify killing, say, a mentally disabled person because of nonsense about not being able to support a "spirit" either. The idea that one can justifiably kill a human creature simply because it is either underdeveloped or not yet fully developed is ludicrous beyond just religious reasons: Should toddlers be killed at whim because they cannot move, * communicate, or think as we fully human adults do? Certainly not, and if the unborn is human, it should not be killed for such trivial reasons either. The question stands: What is the unborn? Let the debate be about the true issue and let the arguments, for or against, deal with that issue. With that said, I offer the following facts concerning the timeline of an unborn human: On day I, at conception, all human chromosomes are present. Within a week, cells with human DNA, distinct from both its mother and father, have already become specialized for the various human body functions. By day 22, before even the first month of pregnancy is over, a human heart is present and begins to pump blood that is different from that of the mother’s. By week 6, brain waves are recordable. By week 10, all of the human organs are present in the creature, fingerprints are forming, and the unborn is able to turn its head, frown, and hiccup. Not more than a week later, the creature’s human organs are all functioning and it can grasp objects placed in its hand. That creature, w'ith its own DNA, is not a dog or a bug. It is not a clump of hair or unnecessary appendage. Clearly, the unborn human is human. While I would like to, I cannot take credit for all of the ideas or phrases in this article. For more information, please visit www.caseforlife.com