Liberty and Equality for All?

By Brent Taylor Stenhouse, Abortion Abolitionist

Published on December 2, 2003 By ABOLITIONIST In Philosophy

Liberty and Equality. Our democratic republic was founded on these two principles. Yet even before and ever since, individuals have posed this perennial question: "Are liberty and equality consistent one with the other, or are they in conflict?" (Milton and Rose Friedman, "Free To Choose," 1980).
Like two sides of the same coin, these two principles are not only consistent with each other, they are inseparable. For who can truly be free if she is not recognized as an equal among her peers? On the other side of the coin, who can be truly equal if he is not free - at liberty - to pursue his life like all others?
All coins are alloyed to some degree or another with impurities; throughout its history, the coin of American promise has been alloyed with various impurities, the most infamous of which was slavery. Today, there exists an even more infamous impurity: ABORTION.
Just as slavery represented the denial of humanity to one class of human beings - Blacks, so abortion represents the denial of humanity to another class of human beings - the Unborn.
For what are the Unborn but a distinct class of human beings? As the biological progeny of two separate human beings, the Unborn are nothing less than human beings themselves (the Law of Biogenesis).
Here, contrarians must concede faced with the biological facts; rather than doing so, however, they usually resort to raising the issue of personhood. But I ask, "What's the difference?" Simply put, there is none; that is, there is no morally relevant difference between the two. Again, like both sides of a coin, humanity and personhood are inseparable; that is, they are ontologically indistinguishable: "Being a human with unalienable rights is bound up with being a person. One can't be separated from the other. All human beings,..., are valuable persons" (Greg Koukl, "Precious Unborn Human Persons," 1999). Thus, the Unborn are not potential persons; rather, the Unborn are persons with great potential (Francis Beckwith, "Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights," 1993).
This potential, however, will never be realized if the Unborn are systematically deprived of their fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Thomas Jefferson, "Declaration of Independence," 1776). And what right is more fundamental than the right to life? Happiness cannot be pursued without the liberty to do so, nor can liberty be obtained without life (Rick Santorum): "There is only one fundamental right...a man's right to his own life" (Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," 1966).
Therefore, if the Unborn are not human beings (qua human persons), then elective abortion is ethically permissible under any and all circumstances; however, if the Unborn are human beings (qua human persons), then elective abortion is ethically impermissible.

Comments

Tommy

on Dec 03, 2003

Thank you.

LaVoix

on Feb 19, 2004

Okay, I get it. Save all to strip the planet of all it's resource's and make sure there's plenty of cannon fodder for the 'grown-up' version of abortion called war.

What you have in your article is a lot of double-speak that says nothing new.

Quote - This potential, however, will never be realized if the Unborn are systematically deprived of their fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Thomas Jefferson, "Declaration of Independence," 1776). And what right is more fundamental than the right to life? - Unquote.

Hmm, what about the quality of life and purpose? What if your life and liberty threaten another's? Jefferson's words are pretty, they sound great, but in reality, they do not apply to abortion issues. If you've never been pregnant under horrific circumstances, you have no understanding based on real experience. Remove the right to choose, which takes us back to the mother's fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and you will only leave ALL of us in the world, less free.

jukker@hotmail.com

on Jun 21, 2004

there is a differernce between humanhood and that is viability. Until the fetus is viable without the mother it is not a person because it cannot exist without someone elses biological activity. That is why women are morally entitled to choose wether they will continue to provide life to the fetus or not before viability.

CybrSage

on Jul 24, 2004

What about a 2 year old? A 2 year old cannot exist on its own. It is therefor not VIABLE and by your own definition can still be aborted.

Good call. There are many bratty 2 year olds we need to abort.

Anon

on Sep 12, 2004

What about those who have been raped and as a result have become pregnant with an unwanted child? I think you have absolutely no right to say who is or isn't to have an abortion. You have never experienced it yourself, so don't try and justify abolishing abortions, especially as you are male!

msladydeath

on Oct 16, 2004

I would call that an intresting artical, unfortunately I don't really agree with it. Deny a women her right to legally choose, and odds are, she will find an illegal way to do it, and probably unsanitary, and could end in infection, sterilization, or death. Or the infant could be born in an unhealthy environment and left to starve, freeze, etc to death. I don't thing 3rd trimester abortion is right, or should be legal since the fetus could be delivered and posibley servive and thrive, but I just can't see that the right to "protect" the unborn should over rule the safety of the mother, and if she is determined enough, she will find away, legal or illegal.

4 of diamonds

on Dec 08, 2004

what about menstruating 11 yr old girls who are raped by fathers and brothers?

and even if abortion was banned, it wouldn't stop. you'd just see alot of 12-18 yr olds bleeding out in the ER, in agony, with coat hangers twisted into their wombs and vaginas; like before roe vs. wade. i talked to the ER nurses who witnessed this horror again and again.

no, it's not in our power to decide who dies, or when they die. but its neither in our power to decide what someone else does with their body; if you did, you'd be judging them. and you cannot judge a raped 11 yr old girl.

brent taylor stenhouse

on Apr 07, 2005

My mother never had a penis; she's been a female member of Homo Sapiens her entire life; therefore, can you really say that the penis of the unborn male, developing within her womb, is a part of the mother's body? Obviously not. Though inside her body, the Unborn is no more a part of it than the baby seconds outside of the womb; no, location, size, level of development... none of these things change the ontological status of the Unborn.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!